BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Rosemary Nelson Inquiry

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, dated 23 May 2011, of the Rosemary Nelson Inquiry.—(James Duddridge.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

The Secretary of State was asked—

Underperforming Schools

Mary Macleod: What steps he is taking to improve standards in underperforming schools.

Michael Gove: I want our education system to be the best in the world, which is why we have invested more than £100 million in an endowment fund for the poorest students. We have invested £2.5 billion in the pupil premium, we have expanded the academy programme and we have invested more in expanding elite routes into teaching such as Teach First. We have also raised the floor standards by which we judge schools’ performance. Some 216 secondary schools are below the floor standards with fewer than 35% of their students achieving five good GCSEs, including English and maths, and 1,394 primary schools are below the floor standards with fewer than 60% of pupils at the end of key stage 2 achieving level 4 or above in English and maths. I wrote to local authorities on 1 March asking them to set out their plans for improving their weaker schools. I received those plans back on 15 April and I am reviewing them.

Mr Speaker: The answer, I am afraid, was simply too long. I hope that answers from now on will be shorter.

Mary Macleod: In my constituency I want the best possible education for all pupils, no matter who they are or where they come from, but organisations such as the CBI are saying that they are concerned by the numeracy and literacy levels of school leavers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should have a zero-tolerance approach to underperforming schools and that we should prioritise literacy and numeracy levels?

Michael Gove: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, that the Government are doing so much that I could not pack it all into one answer. I agree with my hon. Friend that we
	absolutely need a zero-tolerance policy on illiteracy and innumeracy. That is why we will be ensuring that all students pursue a course in English and maths to the age of 18.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State will know that one of the best ways of improving standards in schools is having a highly qualified and motivated teaching staff. I understand that there has still been no response to the inquiry into the quality of teacher training that the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families conducted when I was its Chair.

Michael Gove: We gave an answer to that excellent report with the publication of our White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”. From that title, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will draw the appropriate inference that there is nothing more important than teaching.

Graham Stuart: The James review found that school buildings that are beyond being merely fit for purpose make no real contribution to educational standards and that teaching and leadership are what make the difference to outcomes for children, not least in our weakest schools. Will the Secretary of State explain the difference in spending patterns that will be implemented by this Government as compared with those of the previous Government?

Michael Gove: That is a typically good question from the Education Committee Chairman. Unlike the previous Government, we will not be wasting money on a capital programme that is out of control and bureaucratic. Instead, we will be investing money in making sure that more of the very best graduates go into teaching and we will be expanding opportunities for inspirational figures such as Peter Hyman to open new free schools and target the disadvantaged, who need them most.

Meg Munn: Last week, I visited a school in my constituency that struggles to meet the floor targets but which has the most dedicated and outstanding teachers and head teacher anyone could wish for. How will the Government support those outstanding teachers and make them feel that the job they are doing is valued even though, because of all the other circumstances that those children experience in their lives, the school will struggle to meet the floor targets?

Michael Gove: We have made our floor standards not only tougher, by raising them, but fairer so that we take account of progression. Those schools in which there are children from challenging backgrounds with low levels of prior attainment will be judged in the round. We are going to have a new measure in our performance tables that focuses attention on the performance of the 20% of students who come from the toughest backgrounds. It is also the case that our pupil premium will ensure that schools such as the one the hon. Lady mentions, with a high proportion of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, will simply get more money so that teachers can do an even better job.

School Administration

Paul Uppal: What steps he is taking to reduce the burden of administration on schools; and if he will make a statement.

Nick Gibb: The Government are committed to reducing the administrative burden on schools. We have already announced that the lengthy self-evaluation form will be removed, FMSiS—the financial management standard in schools—will be scrapped, and the inspection framework will be streamlined. All data collections are being reviewed and we have included measures in the Education Bill to remove unnecessary regulations. In addition, we are taking action to reduce dramatically the volume of guidance and advice issued to schools.

Paul Uppal: Free schools and academies reduce bureaucracy so that more time can be spent on education. Does the Minister agree that all those schools should be encouraged in all areas so that children from any background can have access to an environment that encourages aspiration and ambition?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend is right. The recent Public Accounts Committee report on academies found that they have achieved rapid academic improvements and raised aspirations in some of the most challenging schools in some of the most deprived parts of the country. That is why we are expanding the academies programme and encouraging more providers to enter the free schools movement.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Although it is important to reduce the burden of administration, how will the Government make sure that free schools have the right management skills to deal with the issues they face? In Bradford, a number of free schools have been approved where the management have no proven skills in management techniques.

Nick Gibb: There is a rigorous approval procedure before any free school proposal is approved by the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman should be assured that we are accepting to business case only those proposals that can demonstrate to the Secretary of State that they have a rigorous approach to leadership and management and will provide high-quality education.

Andrew Percy: Too much administration, the overbearing nature of Ofsted inspections, and an almost evangelical approach to safeguarding make it almost impossible for many schools to take their kids out on school trips. Instead, our young people are penned up in fortress-like schools. May we have an assurance that the Department will do everything it can to ensure that children get out of the classroom and go to museums and other facilities where they learn better?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend is right. That is why Ofsted inspections are being focused on teaching, leadership, attainment, behaviour and safety. We have taken into account the work of Lord Young in making sure that we do not over-regulate school trips, and that we make it much easier and safer for teachers to take children on school trips without the fear of prosecution.

English Baccalaureate

Catherine McKinnell: What estimate he has made of the number of young people who will opt to study English baccalaureate subjects in the 2011-12 academic year.

Nick Gibb: We do not currently collect systematic data on pupil choices, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the English baccalaureate measure is having a positive effect, with more schools making this combination of subjects open to more pupils. Our concern is that last year just 15.6% of pupils achieved a C grade or better in the English baccalaureate combination of subjects.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Minister for that reply, but what would he say to a governor at Walbottle Campus in my constituency who raised with me the fact that that school and others like it have seen an impressive performance in GCSE results in the past few years, but saw only about 5% of its pupils achieving the E-bac? Does the Minister recognise the concern that E-bac by diktat will put at risk the hard work and commitment of staff, governors and pupils in creating a broad curriculum that enables all pupils to thrive?

Nick Gibb: The English baccalaureate is not prescriptive. It is just a measure—one of many measures—that this Government are putting forward as part of the transparency agenda. It is the next stage in that school’s improved performance. It is a concern to the Government that children, particularly in deprived areas, are not being offered that combination of choices. Only 8% of children who qualify for free school meals were even entered for the English baccalaureate subjects, and only 4% achieved them.

Annette Brooke: Does the Minister have any hard evidence that there has been a significant switch towards subjects in the English baccalaureate this year for this year’s results? Is he concerned that as a consequence cramming might have taken place in the switched-to subject?

Nick Gibb: It is always a concern if schools are not entering students for qualifications that best meet their interests. That is what is behind the introduction of the English baccalaureate measure. We want to undo some of the perverse incentives that already exist in the league table situation. We would not want to see pupils being transferred mid-course to English baccalaureate subjects simply for the league table position.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I gently appeal to the Minister of State to face the House when giving his replies so that we can all hear them?

Kevin Brennan: I am sure the Minister has read the bishops’ e-alert which arrived from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales at 2.18 pm this afternoon, in which the bishops say that they
	“have serious reservations over the omission of Religious Education from the English Baccalaureate”
	and
	“urge the government to reconsider its decision”.
	Given the state of rebellion on the Government Benches about this and the uncertainty across the country, will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that he is not planning another U-turn, this time about RE and the E-bac?

Nick Gibb: Unlike the Pope, the bishops are not infallible. We believe that there is plenty of room in the English baccalaureate curriculum to continue to study subjects such as RE, economics, music, art and vocational subjects, and we have deliberately kept the English baccalaureate small to enable that to happen. In addition, RE is a compulsory subject, and we have seen a very large rise in the proportion of the cohort taking religious studies to GCSE, whereas we have seen a fall in the numbers and the proportion taking geography and history to GCSE.

School Staff Redundancies

Andrew Gwynne: What recent estimate he has made of the likely number of redundancies of school staff in 2011-12.

Nick Gibb: No such assessment has been made centrally. The funding settlement for 2011-12 protects school funding in the system at flat cash per pupil and provides funding for the pupil premium on top of that.

Andrew Gwynne: Is the Minister aware of the report in The Times Educational Supplement showing that almost four in 10 schools in England plan to reduce staff numbers in the next year, meaning a possible drop of almost 17,000 staff across England? With a reduction of that order, is it not the case that many schools will struggle, particularly when it is linked to reductions in school budgets, which will fall in real terms over the next three years, meaning that those pupils most in need will be disadvantaged the most?

Nick Gibb: It is very difficult to take Labour Members seriously on the issue of funding, because we inherited a record Budget deficit that had to be tackled, and despite tackling a £156 billion Budget deficit, we have managed to maintain funding for schools at flat cash per pupil over the spending review period. In addition, we have introduced the pupil premium, which will rise to £2.5 billion by 2014-15. Having said that, and although this is a good settlement in the context of what we inherited, schools will have to find efficiencies in procurement and other areas; we absolutely recognise that. Coming from the hon. Gentleman, the question is rich, given what we inherited from his Government.

Free Schools

Dominic Raab: What recent progress he has made in establishing free schools.

Michael Gove: The first free schools are due to open in September, less than 15 months since we first invited applications from groups interested in setting up new schools. That in itself is testament to the incredible energy and commitment of the first pioneering projects. Four groups have now entered into a funding agreement, a further 22 have had their business cases approved and six more are under consideration.

Dominic Raab: I wholeheartedly welcome that progress. Research by the Adam Smith Institute has found that 42% of profit-making independent schools operate on fees equal to or less than the average pupil funding in state schools. If entrepreneurs can drive up teaching standards and keep costs down, should we not look critically at some of the more dogmatic objections to their potential role in developing free schools?

Michael Gove: I welcome my hon. Friend’s radicalism and idealism. I want to see how the first free schools do when they open in September. Given some of the inspirational figures who plan to lead them, I am convinced that we will see standards rise and that, as we see them rise, the innovations that those figures bring to the state sector will be spread more widely.

Christopher Leslie: Is it true that there are 100 civil servants in the Department working on the free schools programme? If it is not 100, how many is it? What is the cost of that number of civil servants, and what on earth are they doing?

Nicholas Boles: More than they were under you!

Michael Gove: Yes—a very good prompt from behind me. There are just around 100 civil servants working on the programme and I am delighted that they are, because I am convinced that helping idealistic figures, such as Peter Hyman and Sajid Hussain, a state school teacher who is setting up a school for disadvantaged students in Bradford, is a good thing. We are bringing schools to the areas of deprivation let down by the hon. Gentleman and his party. Instead of civil servants having their time diverted to the sort of politically correct projects that preoccupied the Labour party, at last they are concentrating on driving up standards for the poorest, and I am proud that it is the coalition Government who are doing it.

Simon Kirby: Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming a number of potential free schools in my constituency, which he knows well, including one that plans to offer a bilingual education and one that plans to help very deprived young people in different areas?

Michael Gove: I am delighted not only that there are free school applications from Brighton, Kemptown, but that Brighton college is playing a part in helping to establish a new free school in the east end of London which is setting out specifically to target talented children from poorer backgrounds. When that is combined with the innovation being shown by the Durand school in Brixton, for example, which plans to establish a state boarding school for disadvantaged children from that area, I have to say that the coalition Government are unleashing a wave of radicalism the like of which will not have been seen since 1944.

Andy Burnham: That confidence is clearly not shared in No. 10 Downing street, because last week it gave a distinctly lukewarm end-of-term report on the free schools policy. Let me quote a No. 10 source from The Independent:
	“I guess you'd give Michael a six out of 10. The problem with Free Schools is that the scheme was designed to fill gaps in areas where there are poorly performing schools. But that’s not where the applications have come from.”
	Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many of the 26 approved free schools in England come from the 10 most deprived local authority districts?

Michael Gove: May I say, in terms of statements emanating from the centre, how delighted we were on this side of the House to read just last week that the Labour leadership has full confidence in the right hon. Gentleman? We are absolutely delighted that he is where he is, and we hope to see him there for many months to come.
	All the free school applications that we have received are either in areas of deprivation and educational underachievement or in areas where pupil numbers are rising fast and there is a desperate need to see new school places. Whether it is Bradford or the east end, Slough or Tower Hamlets, in every single one of those areas poorer children are benefiting as a result of our radicalism.

Andy Burnham: My son has been doing standard assessment tests—SATs—recently, and I have been saying to him, “Read the question and answer the question.” I am tempted to say the same to the Secretary of State. The answer—the answer he would not give—is two, so it is clear that his policy is based on ideology, not on need.
	I am more pragmatic than the Secretary of State. I have always said that each local proposal should be judged on its merit, and there is nothing to stop a free school being truly comprehensive if it is set up in the right way. What I object to is the unfair way in which he is siphoning off resources from other schools to pay for his free schools. Will he confirm today that the average maintained school is this year going to get an 80% cut in its maintenance budget to pay for free schools? If that is true, how on earth does he justify it?

Michael Gove: I hope the advice that the right hon. Gentleman has given to his son on how he sits his SATs includes doing his revision and his homework, because I sat open-mouthed as the right hon. Gentleman unveiled his latest position on free schools. It is very different from the answer he gave on “The Andrew Marr Show” on 10 October when he was asked:
	“So you are against free schools?”
	and he said, “Yes I am”; very different from the answer he gave in The Guardian on 9 November when he said that under Labour
	“there would be no more free schools”;
	and very different from the answer he gave on 31 January when he said:
	“Free schools mean a free-for–all”.
	Over the past year, he has been consistently opposed to free schools, and now he says he is in favour—

Mr Speaker: Order.

Michael Gove: Not so much a U-turn—

Mr Speaker: Order.

Michael Gove: More an inglorious retreat—

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Secretary of State to resume his seat, and let me make it clear beyond peradventure, to the Secretary of State and to the House, that questions are about the policy of the
	Government and answers, suitably succinct, should be about the policy of the Government. That is how we will proceed from now on.

Special Educational Needs

Nicky Morgan: What progress he has made on the reform of provision for children with special educational needs in (a) Loughborough constituency and (b) England.

Sarah Teather: We published a Green Paper, “Support and Aspiration: A New Approach to Special Educational Needs and Disability”, on 9 March, and it is out to consultation until 30 June. We will consider responses carefully before taking forward our reforms, and we will shortly invite tenders for pathfinders to test proposals in the Green Paper. Within the general framework for special needs provision, it is for local authorities to determine the particular arrangements in their areas.

Nicky Morgan: I thank the Minister for her reply and congratulate her on the excellent Green Paper. I have been contacted by a number of constituents from the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign, however. Can she explain how the Department for Communities and Local Government’s review of statutory duties on local authorities fits in with the strategic role envisaged for local authorities in her Green Paper?

Sarah Teather: I thank the hon. Lady for that question. DCLG is undertaking a comprehensive review of all the statutory duties, but it is intended to remove unnecessary duties, not necessary duties, and there is absolutely no intention to downgrade those duties relating to special educational needs.

Rachel Reeves: The Minister told the Education Committee last week that she thinks there will be resources for special educational needs. Children and parents deserve more than guesswork. Can she guarantee now that the Government will make sure that all children with additional learning needs have the support that they need to succeed at school?

Sarah Teather: That is exactly what the Green Paper is about, and I hope that the hon. Lady, if she has constituents who are particularly affected by our proposals, will ensure that they respond. The proposals are absolutely about making sure that children get the help that they deserve, but that is sadly not happening at the moment, partly because a lot of resources are wasted.

Adoption Rates

Mark Pawsey: What steps he is taking to increase the rate at which children are adopted.

Tim Loughton: The Government and I are very concerned that adoption has lost momentum in recent years, and that is why we have launched a programme of reform. This has included setting up a ministerial advisory group, writing to directors of children’s services and lead members, publishing revised guidance, and launching
	an adoption data pack to support and challenge local authorities. We are also funding two voluntary sector projects to improve adoption practices and helping to promote adoption through National Adoption Week.

Mark Pawsey: I thank the Minister for his answer and his support for the great work done by adoptive parents, and I welcome the Government’s work to increase adoption. He will be aware, however, of concerns about the security of the personal information of adoptive parents. Does he accept that without appropriate safeguards, parents may be discouraged from adopting? Will he take this opportunity to assure me and others that he is taking all possible steps to ensure that adopters’ personal information is properly protected?

Tim Loughton: I echo my hon. Friend’s support for the fantastic dedication of prospective adopters and people who take on that great responsibility. I know of his great interest in this area. He is absolutely right. I do not want to see anything that stands in the way of people coming forward and offering themselves to give safe adoptive placements to vulnerable children. He has raised this issue with me before in an Adjournment debate. I give him an undertaking that we will see if there are any problems in this area that are undermining the system.

Citizenship Teaching

Caroline Dinenage: What plans he has for the future of citizenship teaching in schools.

Nick Gibb: We are currently reviewing the national curriculum with a view to slimming it down and focusing it on the essential knowledge that all children should acquire. Beyond that, it should be for individual schools to design a curriculum that best meets the needs of their pupils. The review is considering which subjects, beyond English, maths, science and physical education, should be part of the national curriculum in future, and we will announce our proposals early next year.

Caroline Dinenage: Fareport Training Organisation in Gosport has been nominated as a community champion for its amazing work in using citizenship education to help to engage post-16 students who have been disengaged with the traditional school system. Given what these classes have taught these students about their role in society and the value of democracy, does the Minister think that they would have enormous value in delivering the big society?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend is right. Citizenship is an important subject, and schools have an important role to play in encouraging young people to become responsible citizens and active members of society. I welcome what she says about her school. The Government are fully committed to empowering young people to become active citizens. That is the intention behind the launch of the national citizenship service programme last year.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Minister will be aware of his own Government’s violence against women and girls strategy and the excellent report from
	the Select Committee on Home Affairs, both of which have highlighted the importance of education in schools in preventing violence against women and girls. What steps is he taking to make sure that that plan is delivered in our schools?

Nick Gibb: This is one issue that will be addressed in the national curriculum review. The issues that the hon. Lady raises are very important and have been given a very high priority by this Government. We share her concerns and we agree with the importance of raising these issues at school level. That is precisely what the national curriculum review will examine.

Dan Rogerson: The schools White Paper introduced an internal review of PSHE—personal, social and health education—teaching. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of that review?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we will shortly make an announcement on the details of the internal review.

Discretionary Learner Support Fund

Lisa Nandy: Whether the guidelines he plans to produce for the discretionary learner support fund will have a statutory basis.

John Hayes: As with the education maintenance allowance, guidance on the 16-to-19 bursary fund, whose establishment is provided by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 14 of the Education Act 2002, will be issued by the Young People’s Learning Agency pursuant to its statutory powers under section 72 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.

Lisa Nandy: Surely the Minister accepts that there is an urgent need for young people to have certainty as they make decisions about whether to go to college this year. Given that his own Department’s equality impact assessment said that the shift to a discretionary system could leave the door open to unintended discrimination, how will he ensure that decisions about allocation of funds are fair to students and do not leave colleges to prosecution under the equalities law?

John Hayes: By her own description, the hon. Lady is a champion of fairness, and she has been consistent in her critique of these matters. We expect schools and colleges to have regard to the guidance. They will also have to comply with equalities legislation, which means that they must not discriminate against their students on the basis of their protected characteristics, and they are subject to the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010.

Academies

Eric Ollerenshaw: How many schools had converted, or applied to convert, to academy status in (a) Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency and (b) England on the most recent date for which figures are available.

Michael Gove: Three schools have applied and have opened as academies in Lancaster and Fleetwood. Those schools are Lancaster royal grammar school, Lancaster girls grammar school and Ripley St Thomas Church of England high school. The total number of open academies stands at 658, and more than 1,000 schools in England have applied to convert to academy status since June 2010.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that success, and I thank him and his officials for their help with regard to Lancaster. Will he ensure that every assistance is given to schools that specialise in teaching children with special educational needs so that they can enjoy the benefits of academy status?

Michael Gove: I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s commitment to ensuring that all children, particularly those who have special educational needs, can benefit from these additional freedoms. I am working with the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) to bring forward proposals to allow special schools to become academies.

Kate Hoey: The academy programme shows that the one-size-fits-all school is not what we need. May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his support for the groundbreaking boarding school element of Durand academy in my constituency? It will be the first free state boarding school for people from the most deprived areas, and the people of that school and the people of my community will welcome it.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the points that she makes. She is a consistent champion of helping people from poorer backgrounds to do better in state education. I place on the record my thanks to her for the support that she has given the outstanding team of teachers at Durand academy. I hope that this new initiative ensures that the children at that school continue to have an education of the highest quality. I am sure that we can make common cause of our shared commitment to ensuring that children from poorer backgrounds enjoy the sort of education previously restricted to those from richer backgrounds.

Maintained School Buildings

Tony Lloyd: What recent assessment he has made of the condition of maintained school buildings.

Michael Gove: The Department for Education and Skills took the decision to no longer collect information on the condition of maintained school buildings in 2005 under the previous Government. The review of education capital undertaken by Sebastian James recommends the implementation of a rolling programme of condition data collection to provide a picture of investment needs. To help us consider our response to that recommendation, we have recently asked some local authorities to provide details of the condition information that they currently hold on their estates.

Tony Lloyd: I think the House will recognise that that answer is only marginally helpful. Under the last Labour Government, a lot of secondary and primary schools in inner-city areas such as mine were rebuilt. At the moment, it is very unlikely that any primary schools, even those in great need, will see rebuilding or major refurbishment programmes. When will the money be available to those schools to ensure that children in inner cities get the education they deserve?

Michael Gove: I will say two things. First, I recognise that many schools are in a desperately poor condition and need investment. Secondly, any question about investment can only elicit the reply that the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) gave earlier, which is that when Opposition Members ask for more investment, they should ask themselves one question: who is responsible for the desperate state of the economy that we inherited after 13 years of comprehensive mismanagement?

Alan Beith: My right hon. Friend made his own personal assessment of the state of the buildings at the Duchess’s community high school in Alnwick, and he pronounced them to be pretty dreadful. When will there be a capital programme to which we can bid for those schools that are most urgently in need of rebuilding?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend has made his case consistently and well. I hope to make an announcement about our response to the James review before Parliament rises for the summer recess. That will give explicit details about how we can make available resources for schools whose condition and fabric deserve urgent attention.

Stephen Twigg: In March this year, the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) kindly visited St John Bosco arts college in my constituency. In the Government’s announcement before the summer on their response to the James review, will they state that schools in areas of high social and economic deprivation will still benefit from higher capital support from Government?

Michael Gove: I know that the Minister of State was impressed by the commitment shown by the teachers and parents at the school he visited. The hon. Gentleman has put his case throughout fairly and well. We will do everything that we can to ensure that the schools in the greatest need receive money. We have to prioritise schools where the fabric is most in need of support. As ever when thinking about revenue and capital allocations, deprivation is one of the central factors that we will consider.

Careers Guidance

Alok Sharma: What steps he is taking to improve the standard of careers guidance available in schools.

John Hayes: Subject to the passage of the Education Bill, schools will be under a new duty to secure access to independent and impartial careers guidance for their pupils from September 2012. Also,
	an unprecedented degree of co-operation with the careers industry means that we will have new professional standards, training and accreditation.

Alok Sharma: I thank the Minister for his work in this area. Does he agree that more businesses also need to work in partnership with schools to provide careers advice? Will he join me in applauding the companies that are backing the futures fair that I and others in my constituency are putting together for secondary schools in Reading?

John Hayes: I am well aware, as you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House will be, of my hon. Friend’s commitment in that regard. Indeed, on 29 September, under his leadership, Reading West schools and others will be holding a futures fair. It is critical that that becomes the norm, not the exception, with businesses, schools, careers guidance bodies and Government working together to turn people’s ambitions into reality.

Iain Wright: Why did the Minister not have a transition plan in place for his changes to careers guidance, and what estimates has he made of the number of young people who will be affected this year by the absence of such a plan?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Education Bill is going through the House—I have a copy for him here, just in case he has forgotten its contents. He also knows that on the subject of transition I have written to every local authority in the country—again, I have a copy of the details here—and to schools, letting them know what provision they need to put in place in anticipation of their new duty this September.

Connexions

Karl Turner: How many people he expects to be made redundant as a result of the closure of Connexions services; and if he will make a statement.

John Hayes: The move from Connexions to more effective arrangements for careers guidance will present challenges as new opportunities emerge. Those challenges will, of course, be resolved at local level. It is for local authorities themselves to decide what provision they should make for young people, taking into account their statutory duties and the advice that they have received from me.

Karl Turner: The good people of Hull have just kicked out the Liberal Democrat council, and with it the Tory-led policy of pulling funding for Connexions. Will the Minister congratulate the new council leader, Steve Brady, on overturning that vicious Tory policy and looking after young people in the city?

John Hayes: Not only will I congratulate him, but I would be pleased to meet him with the hon. Gentleman to discuss these issues, such is the ecumenical way in which the Government treat important matters involving young people’s hopes and futures.

Julie Hilling: How will the Minister consult young people about the changes to the careers and Connexions service, as he has a statutory duty to do?

John Hayes: The hon. Lady will know that I have agreed to, and indeed already conducted, a meeting with young people to consider exactly what they want out of the system. I intend to spread those summits to other locations across the country so that we can shape the service to meet young people’s needs, for as John Ruskin said:
	“The highest reward for a man’s toil is not what he gets for it, but what he becomes by it.”

Mr Speaker: We look forward to the Minister’s summit-spreading.

Directors of Children’s Services

David Wright: What recent assessment he has made of the merits of local authorities having a director of children’s services; and if he will make a statement.

Tim Loughton: A working group of representatives from the Department for Education and key stakeholders from the local government sector was set up earlier this year to consider the role of directors of children’s services. The group is developing a range of options. Of course, Professor Munro also considered the matter in conducting her review of child protection, published last week, and I plan to consider her recommendation alongside the options appraisal that is being drawn up by the working group.

David Wright: Is it not of crucial importance that every top-tier local authority has a director of children’s services? Children’s safety has to be a priority right across the House and the country. Why are Telford Conservatives opposing the appointment of a director of children’s services in Telford and Wrekin council, of which we have just taken control with a whopping majority?

Tim Loughton: I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning will be delighted to meet the new leader of the hon. Gentleman’s council, as well, at some stage in the future.
	I remind the hon. Gentleman that the recommendations of the Munro report will be considered with the working group that we have already established, as we decide on the best way forward in delivering children’s services in local authorities. We will ensure that children are given the very best protection, which we know we need to improve.

Peter Bone: If there are to be directors of children’s services, should not one of their roles be to identify and protect children who have been victims of human trafficking, which is not done at present?

Tim Loughton: I want to raise the profile of the whole issue of the trafficking of children and the sexual exploitation of children—another important issue, on
	which we are working closely with Barnardo’s and stakeholders—and to ensure that we have much better inter-agency working. In Professor Munro’s recommendations, local safeguarding children boards have a key role to play. That might be considered alongside what the director of children’s services does in any case.

Toby Perkins: The Opposition welcome Professor Eileen Munro’s report, and specifically her recommendation that the role of director of children’s services is protected. We recently surveyed every director of children’s services in England, more than 80% of whom said that the ability to safeguard children in their area would be reduced by cuts to police, mental health services or primary care. Does the Minister acknowledge the worries of those directors of children’s services that cuts to those services will impact on the ability of councils to safeguard their children, and what is he doing to represent those views to his ministerial colleagues?

Tim Loughton: If the hon. Gentleman has read the Munro report, he will know that she identifies as the biggest enemy to protecting children better the bureaucracy that has gone into the system, whereby social workers at the sharp end with other key agencies and professionals spend up to 80% of their time in front of computer screens, complying with processes rather than getting out into the field and dealing with the vulnerable families and children whom they went into the profession to protect. That is what we want to happen in future, and I hope it will happen as we take forward the Munro review, in the best interests of protecting the vulnerable children who are not nearly safe enough now.

Bursary Fund

Nicholas Dakin: How much funding will be available through the 16-to-19 bursary fund in the 2011-12 academic year for students starting their courses in September 2011 after allocation of the amount guaranteed for vulnerable groups.

John Hayes: We expect the cost of providing a £1,200 bursary to the most vulnerable young people to be just under £15 million in 2011-12. In addition, just over £101 million in 2011-12 will be allocated to schools, colleges and training providers for them to make discretionary awards to students. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are also putting in place transitional funding.

Nicholas Dakin: In evidence to the Select Committee on Education last week, the chief executive of the Association of Colleges made it clear that to support young people properly, schools and colleges ought to have known six months ago how much money they would get. They still do not know how much money they will get. When will they know?

John Hayes: What colleges do know is that the Government are providing just over £194 million in 2011-12 in the transitional support that I have described. Of course, the change that we are describing is a change towards greater discretion. I was with the gentleman to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, and I know how much he welcomes that additional discretion, so that the system can become more responsive, dynamic and suited to need.

Andrew Bridgen: We have heard that under the new arrangements, schools and colleges will have flexibility on who qualifies for support, but will my hon. Friend confirm that disadvantaged students in my constituency will get the help that they need to enter further education?

John Hayes: My ambition—I do not say “targets”, because “targets” is not a word that this Government use—is to ensure that no one is prohibited from achieving their potential because they do not have adequate means to do so. That spirit underpins all we do.

Angela Smith: Barnsley college is an outstanding college, as judged by Ofsted, and it would like to support young people from low-income families by giving them free school meals, free transport and help with books and equipment. Will the Government guarantee that they will give Barnsley the funding to deliver that to its young people, to enable them to fulfil their potential?

John Hayes: I will tell the hon. Lady what I will guarantee. I will guarantee that colleges can make those kind of discretionary decisions. She is right: different colleges in different areas, serving different cohorts, need funds to support different kinds of activities to deal with different challenges. That is exactly the kind of flexibility that we intend to help her college and her learners.

Arts and Culture

Don Foster: What steps he is taking to improve the standard of arts and culture education in schools.

Nick Gibb: We want all children and young people to be able to experience a strong cultural education. Following the review of music education, the Government have asked Darren Henley to carry out a review of cultural education, both in and out of school.

Don Foster: The Minister will recognise, however, that the creative industries are crucial to the country’s economic recovery. Is he aware that many of the leaders of those industries remain to be convinced that sufficient is being done to include within the national curriculum the subjects that really matter to them—art, design, technology and so on? May we have a categorical assurance that guidance has been given to the national curriculum review to ensure that those subjects are included properly?

Nick Gibb: The national curriculum review is considering which subjects should be compulsory at which stages of a pupil’s education, and it will make its recommendations in due course. However, just because a subject is not in the national curriculum does not mean that it is not an important subject. It can be important but outside the national curriculum. We have to distinguish between the national curriculum and a school curriculum. We want to give schools more discretion in drawing up school curricula.

Tristram Hunt: Given that academy schools have been among the worst offenders in putting pupils from poorer income families on to grade-inflating, semi-vocational courses, how will the expansion of academies further the take-up of English baccalaureate subjects?

Nick Gibb: The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue on several occasions, and we share his concerns. In most instances, academies have taken over schools in deprived areas and in challenging circumstances, and mostly those schools have been badly underperforming. Academies are transforming the quality of education in those areas at twice the pace of mainstream schools across the system. We share his concerns, however, and the introduction of the English baccalaureate measure will go a long way to ensuring that schools in the most challenging parts of the country start to deliver academic education for children who have been denied those opportunities to date.

Topical Questions

Tony Lloyd: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Gove: One of my Department’s aims is to ensure that the most talented people possible are teaching our children. Teachers from the European economic area can already teach in our schools. Today I want to extend that freedom to teachers from Commonwealth countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia, and I hope that other Commonwealth countries such as South Africa, Jamaica and Singapore can join in due course.

Tony Lloyd: Would the Secretary of State like to compare the answer of the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, when he talked about the ecumenical nature of the Government in wanting to meet the needs and hopes of young people in education, to his own horribly brazen party political response, when I asked him about school building for children in inner-city areas? Will he come to Manchester and see some of these schools so that we can discuss how to improve the situation?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning is blessedly ecumenical, but I am afraid I am sometimes more narrowly Presbyterian in my approach. However, it would be a pleasure to visit Manchester again. I have enjoyed it in the past, and I know that when it comes to speaking up for his constituents, the hon. Gentleman does a great job. I would be happy to work with him.

Stephen Barclay: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is unfairness in the level of per pupil funding for Cambridgeshire schools when set against the national average? Will he join me in urging schools across Cambridgeshire to respond to the Department’s consultation on school funding reform, which finishes on Wednesday?

Michael Gove: Yes and yes.

Sharon Hodgson: Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning the mean-spirited actions of Tory-controlled Wandsworth council, which plans to introduce a charge of £2.50 for children to play in a publicly funded playground? Children there play together regardless of income or background, and for many local children the playground is their back garden, because they live in high-rise flats. Is this localism in action, or will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government will press councils to ensure that this is not a slippery slope towards a price tag on playtime? [Interruption.]

Michael Gove: As my hon. Friends point out, a slippery slope is often something we would want in a playground. In fairness, however, as the hon. Lady pointed out, we want to ensure that children have the opportunity to play and enjoy play without fees or bureaucracy getting in the way. It is one of the responsibilities of local authorities to ensure that children have an opportunity to play freely, but it is also the responsibility of central Government to sweep away some of the ridiculous health and safety regulations that the previous Government put in place to prevent our young children from enjoying themselves properly.

Philip Hollobone: Within just a few weeks of beginning their initial recruit training courses for the Army, Royal Navy or Royal Air Force, individuals joining the forces who have been let down in the areas from which they come have had their educational attainment transformed. What lessons can mainstream schools learn from Her Majesty’s armed forces?

Michael Gove: That is a brilliant point from my hon. Friend, who, as some may know, is a Territorial who served in the Parachute regiment. Our proposal to allow people who have been in the armed forces to enter the classroom—our Troops to Teachers programme—will ensure that precisely the sorts of virtues that he talks about become more widespread and are targeted at the most disadvantaged children.

Kerry McCarthy: Bristol is facing a crisis in primary school provision, with an estimated shortfall of at least 3,000 places by 2015. Instead of supporting gimmicky measures such as the 150 places at the new secondary free school in Bristol, will the Minister concentrate on the real needs of parents and pupils in Bristol, and help us get primary school provision in place?

Michael Gove: I note that the hon. Lady is opposed to new secondary school provision in Westbury on Trym. I am sure that her constituents will want to know that she is against an excellent new secondary school—that is very instructive to know—and that she is diverging from the view of her Front-Bench colleagues, who I think are in favour of free schools. There is an urgent need for more primary school places. The last Government were warned by the Office of Government Commerce that they needed to act, but they failed to do so. That is why all local authorities are receiving more money from us to provide more school places for primary school children.

Christopher Pincher: In Tamworth and around the country, A-level students are now preparing for their examinations, and many will have offers of university places based on their predicted results. Is it not time that we ended this unsatisfactory arrangement and timetabled university applications to come after A-level examinations and results, thereby ending the bureaucracy of clearing?

Michael Gove: It is an intriguing idea. It is not quite as simple as it seems, but we and colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are looking into it.

Clive Efford: Following the abolition of education maintenance allowance, further education colleges are finding it difficult to plan ahead for pupils on low incomes, those who may have been on free school meals and those from low-income households. How on earth will colleges be able to plan ahead if they are not receiving information about the people trying to enrol? Can the Minister say what he is going to do about that?

John Hayes: That is a perfectly fair question. It is important that colleges have information as soon as possible to make the kind of provision that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I will ensure that further discussions take place between my officials and colleges to guarantee that they have that information.

Andrew Stephenson: Does the Secretary of State agree with Ofqual that the OCR—Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations—GCSE history pilot should end? Shaun Connelly, the head of humanities at Colne Primet high school in my constituency, has contacted me, as he believes that the course has allowed students of all abilities to achieve their potential in history.

Michael Gove: A judgment about which qualifications should or should not count is properly a matter for Ofqual, the independent regulator. One of the points that it makes is that although that particular qualification may have some teaching attractions, only 25% of the content is assessed by an external exam at the end; 75% of it is teacher-assessed. Many of us would argue that the balance between teacher assessment and external assessment should be got right, and that we should have more external assessment.

Diana Johnson: Under the Protection of Freedoms Bill, an individual who is barred from working with children can volunteer in the classroom. The school will not be notified that that person has been barred by the independent safeguarding authority. Many parents are worried about this development. Is the Minister?

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. We are working on a number of scenarios to ensure that people who are not entitled to work should not be there. However, it is up to everybody to be vigilant—not least the head of a school—and to take appropriate references on the background of the person concerned. I would much rather have a system with a
	common-sense and proportionate approach which does not drive out adults who willingly want to give up their time to work with young people and make them into better members of our community, and not wrap them in cotton wool.

Dominic Raab: A survey for the Prince’s Trust shows that one in five children from deprived homes believes that they will end up in “dead-end jobs”. Does the Minister agree that this highlights the importance of implementing the Wolf review, and in particular recommendation 7, which says that the lowest-attaining learners should focus on English and maths, backed up by practical work experience?

John Hayes: I am familiar with the Prince’s Trust report to which my hon. Friend refers. It does indeed describe the under-achievement that he highlights, but it also says that often people do not get adequate advice and guidance—the wherewithal that they need—to achieve their ambitions. That is precisely why we are so committed to filling that gap.

Paul Blomfield: Head teachers of eight secondary schools serving children in my constituency have taken what they describe as the unprecedented step of writing to the parents and carers of years 11 and 12 students about the impact of Government cuts on sixth-form funding. They are considering cutting the range of courses, increasing class sizes, ending the teaching of some subjects, and reducing guidance and enrichment sessions. They say in their letter:
	“we have never been subject to cuts of this magnitude,”
	which—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that we have got the drift of the question.

Paul Blomfield: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Enough.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that letter; I hope that he will send me a copy. I know that he is a new Member, and that he is passionate about raising standards in his constituency, but the reductions in public spending are a direct consequence of the mistakes that were made by the Government who preceded us. I am afraid that the reply that he should give to that letter should graciously acknowledge that fact.

Penny Mordaunt: Too many special needs children are being denied education because a school place travel grant or a statement has either not been granted or not been honoured. Is it not time, when there is clear evidence of special educational need, that we allow a child’s educational funding to follow them to their school of choice, whether or not they have a statement?

Sarah Teather: The proposals in the Green Paper that we are consulting on aim to make it clearer when a child
	should have a statement. Schools should therefore be much clearer about what is normally available, and I hope that that will make it easier for parents and schools to understand whether there should be a statement. The new proposals for an education, health and care plan ought to join up funding to make things much simpler for families.

John Cryer: Further to Question 13, we have been told for nearly a year that an announcement on the replacement for Building Schools for the Future is imminent, yet we are still waiting. We are now being told that there might be one before the summer recess. The fabric of some schools continues to crumble, and a few are now in a dangerous state. Will we hear an announcement in the next couple of weeks telling us exactly where we are going to be?

Michael Gove: No, I am afraid. I would make two points. Over the comprehensive spending review period we will be spending more every year on school capital than the previous Government spent in every year of their first eight years. It is therefore simply wrong to say that there is no investment in school buildings, because it will be greater than it was in the first eight years under the previous Government. Also, more than 700 schools in the BSF programme are still having their renovation work carried out. Of course we would like to do more, but our capacity to do so is impeded by the bureaucratic mess that we were left by the last Government and by the fact that there simply was not any money left after their comprehensive mismanagement of the economy.

Amber Rudd: Schools in Hastings have been bitterly disappointed by the recent decision of the local authority, guided by the schools forum, to devolve £1.4 million of excellence cluster funding that had been intended for the most deprived schools. It is now to be shared throughout East Sussex. The rationale appears to be that the pupil premium will make up the additional costs. Can the Secretary of State please clarify whether additional funds from the pupil premium are considered as part of the overall funding when the assessment is made of the minimum funding guarantee?

Michael Gove: I have to say that I am very worried about that. I know that it is a Tory authority, but it sounds to me as though it is doing the wrong thing.

Alison McGovern: Good careers advice is absolutely vital to those at risk of falling into neither earning nor learning. Following the demise of Connexions, will the Secretary of State say who will own the administrative data, counting in real time the numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training?

John Hayes: The hon. Lady is right about good careers guidance, but she will know that a survey conducted by Edge found that 51% of young people regarded the advice from Connexions as inadequate. In moving to the new service, we will of course take on board those data, but we are also putting into place for the first time
	an all-age database to give people the advice they need in order to fulfil their potential.

Bob Russell: We all agree with education for life, but will the Secretary of State find time to provide education for saving life as part of the school curriculum?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend has lent his considerable weight to that campaign and it is important, whether we are thinking about swimming and physical education or more broadly, that we do everything we can to ensure that life-saving and first aid skills are part of what happens in our schools.

Dennis Skinner: Twelve months ago, the Secretary of State said that there was a compelling case to rebuild Tibshelf school. Meanwhile, the teachers are travelling 6 miles every day, tramping between two schools—Tibshelf and Deincourt in North Wingfield—yet we have heard nothing more from the Secretary of State. It sounds to me as though, like many of us, he is very good at talking the talk, but in government, you are supposed to walk the walk. When is this going to happen?

Michael Gove: It is good to see the hon. Gentleman walking the walk without any mechanical or medical aid of any kind whatever; we are all reassured to see him in fine form. I have to say that the hon. Gentleman, as a former grammar school boy himself, should accept one thing: the difficult economic situation that we inherited and the difficult position that Derbyshire county council put us into after years of Labour rule mean that it is very difficult for us to do the work necessary to repair the school which needs our support so desperately.

Andrew Turner: What happens to children under seven when they are the only ones sent to another village because there is no place for them in the local school?

Michael Gove: We are doing everything possible with our reform of the school admissions code, which will be published shortly, to ensure that all children have a high-quality school place. I know that my hon. Friend has argued vigorously to ensure that every child on the Isle of Wight has a school of high quality close at hand. I look forward to working with him and the council.

Bill Esterson: Parents, staff and students across Sefton have raised concerns about the plans to create academies. Does the Secretary of State understand the need to gain support from parents, staff and students—and, indeed, the wider community—before converting schools to academies? Will he ensure that such major and irrevocable changes cannot be carried out by governing bodies without full consultation?

Michael Gove: The popularity of academies is attested by the increasing number of parents who want their children to go to those schools. I am sure that every governing body contemplating this step will take the appropriate procedures and will ensure that this transformative change benefits all the students.

Injunctions

John Whittingdale: (Urgent Question): To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the granting and enforcement of privacy injunctions, particularly in light of the recent report chaired by the Master of the Rolls.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend on an issue that I know is of considerable concern in this House as well as to the public and the media. The Government believe that freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, and that it is of the greatest importance that people should be able to discuss and debate issues as freely and openly as possible. This includes those occasions when freedom of speech is exercised provocatively, as it is supposed to be in a free country.
	Plainly, however, there are also occasions when an individual is entitled to have their privacy protected. There is a balance to be struck and this is reflected in our existing legal framework. The Government recognise the importance of finding the correct balance between individual rights to privacy on the one hand and rights to freedom of expression and transparency of official information on the other. We also recognise that there are widely differing views on what that balance should be. It is in no one’s interest to rush to judgment on this.
	The complexity of the issue and the lack of consensus are some of the reasons why the report of the Master of the Rolls’ committee on the procedural aspects of super-injunctions and anonymity injunctions published last Friday is to be welcomed, and why we will want to take on board its carefully thought through recommendations. It reaffirms that open justice is a fundamental constitutional principle, and that exceptions are permissible only to the extent that they are strictly necessary in the interests of justice. While such decisions will necessarily be made in each particular case, dependent on the facts of that case, it does offer a likelihood of some greater clarity.
	The report indicates that when some degree of secrecy is necessary, the facts of the case and the reason for secrecy should be explained, as far as possible, in an openly available judgment. It also emphasises that super-injunctions—where the fact that there is an injunction, as well as the substantive issues, has to be kept secret—are now only being granted for very short periods where secrecy is necessary to ensure that the whole point of the order is not destroyed. We hope that its analysis and recommendations should help to allay concerns that super-injunctions were being granted far too readily and about their potential open-endedness.
	Of course, a range of wider issues has been raised by the events of the past few months and especially the past weekend. We take seriously the need to ensure that we have the correct balance between privacy and freedom of expression. Today, the Prime Minister will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) recommending that a Joint Committee be established to consider how current arrangements can be improved. Such a Committee will be able to use representation of both Houses and the considerable expertise that Select Committees have to examine whether the current
	arrangements are working and to consider whether we might make any changes that would make things work better.
	In the meantime, it is right to emphasise that just as any change in the law is a matter for Parliament, the interpretation of the law is a responsibility placed on the judiciary. Legal mechanisms exist to review individual decisions that may be mistaken. If we believe in the rule of law, it is our duty as parliamentarians to uphold those principles.

John Whittingdale: I welcome the report from the committee of the Master of the Rolls, which contains a number of sensible recommendations, and also the Prime Minister’s decision to establish a Committee to examine all the issues surrounding the granting of injunctions and super-injunctions. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept, however, that matters are developing very rapidly? Does he accept that the revelation on Friday of some of the details of the injunction granted to Sir Fred Goodwin raised important issues of public interest, and that that raises the question of why the injunction was granted in the first place? Does he agree that he would virtually have to live in an igloo not to know the identity of at least one premier league footballer who has obtained an injunction, and that the actions by thousands of people who posted details of it on Twitter are in danger of making the law look an ass?
	In the report by the Master of the Rolls, doubt is cast once again on the right of the press to report the proceedings of Parliament. Does that not have worrying implications for the rights of Members of the House of Commons, and for parliamentary privilege?
	More than a year ago, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport called for the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 to be replaced by a clear and comprehensive statute upholding the fundamental rights of the press to report what is said in this place. Will he ensure that that, too, is considered by the Prime Minister’s Committee as a matter of urgency?

Dominic Grieve: Let me respond to my hon. Friend’s reference to individual cases by saying that he will not be surprised if I am not drawn into commenting on the matter. What I can say is that widespread public interest and, indeed, disquiet have been expressed about the events of the past few weeks and days, and that—as the report by the Master of the Rolls clearly showed—they raise the question of how a person’s privacy can be balanced against the requirement for the public to be properly informed, and also the question of how injunctions may be enforced. I would add, however, that the courts have power to punish those who breach injunctions, and those who decide flagrantly to do so should bear that in mind when they embark on such a course.
	The question of parliamentary privilege is not a new issue. While it is fully recognised that we have complete privilege in this Chamber to say what we like—and the Lord Chief Justice reiterated that in the clearest and most unequivocal terms in his comments last Friday— the question of the extent to which communication between a constituent and a Member of Parliament is covered by parliamentary privilege remains uncertain. What is entirely clear is that—from the judiciary’s point of view as much as those of the Government and Parliament—that is an undesirable state of affairs, which
	is undoubtedly susceptible to both clarification and rectification if the will is there for that to be done.

Sadiq Khan: I thank the Attorney-General for his answer to the urgent question. I also thank the committee chaired by the Master of the Rolls for its report.
	Will the Committee that the Prime Minister is to establish be a Joint Committee consisting of the Culture, Media and Sport and Justice Committees, and how soon will it report?
	Until now, the Government’s position on this issue has been a muddle. The Attorney-General may be aware that I raised the issue last week during Justice questions, when I reminded the Lord Chancellor about the importance of balancing freedom of expression with an individual’s right to privacy. I also asked the Government to give clarity and guidance on an issue that has become increasingly confusing and where Parliament has been slow to act. In response, the Lord Chancellor said that
	“it is probably right that Parliament passing a privacy Act might well be the best way of resolving the issue”.—[Official Report, 17 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 137.]
	However, on the following day the Culture Secretary said:
	“I don’t believe a privacy law is the way forward.”
	The Government appear to be at sixes and sevens on their policy on privacy injunctions and freedom of the press. Will the Attorney-General clarify their position?
	Does the Attorney-General believe that a new privacy law is needed? If so, how will it differ from article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998? He will be aware that super-injunctions and anonymised orders should apply only in exceptional cases. There is a concern that they are being applied for, and granted, too readily. Does the Attorney-General believe that this report will address those concerns, and how soon will the Committee report?
	Does the Attorney-General believe that the sanctions for those who break injunctions are sufficient? What are the Government’s views on how the right to privacy can be balanced with the growing usage of internet-based communications such as Twitter?
	Finally, being able to speak freely in the House of Commons and House of Lords is an essential part of parliamentary scrutiny. Can the Attorney-General confirm that the Government will not allow this principle to be undermined in any way?

Dominic Grieve: I shall deal, so far as I can, with each point in turn. First, the Government have made it clear that it will be a Joint Committee, and have asked
	“Business Managers to establish a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider these issues. The remit will be to advise the Government on how current arrangements can be improved and put on a more sustainable footing, aiming to report in the autumn.”
	The Government have also
	“asked the Justice Secretary and Culture Secretary to liaise…on the Terms of Reference.”
	The right hon. Gentleman’s second question was about privacy law. It is undoubtedly the case that it would be open to this House to enact a privacy law, if it wished. However, I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman
	that he misquoted my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary, as what he actually said was:
	“We’re not minded to have a new privacy law but we’re not ruling out the need for legislative changes.”
	If I may say so, it is possible to have legislative change without necessarily having a full-blown privacy law, and this seems to me to be precisely the sort of issue that the Committee will need to consider, and in a measured and sensible fashion.
	The right hon. Gentleman rightly raised the question as to whether a privacy law would make any difference to the existing arrangements. That, too, is an interesting subject for both legal and political debate, and it is precisely because that needs to take place that the suggestion has come forward that this is the best way in which to proceed.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about enforceability. It has been clear for some time in a number of different spheres that the enforceability of court orders and injunctions presents a challenge now that information can rapidly be posted on the internet, but that does not necessarily mean that the right course of action is to abandon any attempt at preventing people from putting out information that may, in some circumstances, be enormously damaging to vulnerable people or, indeed, be the peddling of lies.

David Davis: May I press my right hon. and learned Friend further on the second issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale): the protection of parliamentary privilege? Last week in the report and the subsequent press conference, the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice intimated that they wanted the House of Commons to extend the sub judice rules in order to restrict the use of freedom of speech under parliamentary privilege in this House and/or the reporting of it. Had that applied in 2009, the public would not be aware today of the Trafigura super-injunction and this whole issue would not have come to light. Can my right hon. and learned Friend please ensure that these proposals by the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice do not in any way restrict either our rights or the rights of the press to report?

Dominic Grieve: I have to say to my right hon. Friend that my reading of what was said is rather different. In the clearest and most unequivocal terms, both the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls spelled out the existing fact: that the privilege we have under article 9 of the Bill of Rights is unimpeachable in any court in respect of what is said in this Chamber. The control mechanism that is put in place is, in fact, entirely dependent on yourself, Mr Speaker. That then raises the question of the extent to which there is a necessity, by convention, for comity, whereby this House, through Mr Speaker’s authority, respects the rulings of other courts, being a court itself. As I understand it, there has never been any suggestion that any of the proposals being put forward call into question those basic principles. Indeed, as I pointed out in an earlier answer, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that where there is a lack of clarity in this area in terms of communication between constituent and Member of
	Parliament, there seems to be a universal view that it would be well if we could clarify things, and the Government recognise that.

Stuart Bell: We welcome the Attorney-General’s clarification, but is it not a fact that if we continue to use parliamentary privilege to usurp court orders, we are not only bringing Parliament and the courts into conflict, but interfering with the separation of powers. Is that desirable or is it not?

Dominic Grieve: I would assume that across the House it would be considered that the abuse of parliamentary privilege to subvert court orders made with the express intention of implementing Parliament’s legislation through the courts is improper. Ultimately, however, that is a matter for this House and Mr Speaker to regulate, and it is through our own mechanisms that we do so; that is the right and privilege we have. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a privilege that must not be abused.

Alan Beith: We would expect a Joint Committee to uphold the necessary rights of Parliament and defend them, but would any Committee not also have to look at the separate question of whether it can be right for someone to use Twitter or electronic media of other kinds to place something in the public domain with the express intention of allowing it then to be reported?

Dominic Grieve: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but it ties in with the earlier point about how all this can be enforced. As I said earlier, however, those who take an idea that modern methods of communication mean that they can act with impunity may well find themselves in for a rude shock.

Keith Vaz: I, too, welcome the establishment of this Joint Committee, which is sensible in view of the difficulties in interpreting the law. There are reports that the Attorney-General is considering prosecuting an individual for a breach of one of these injunctions. Is that the case? Is he considering such a prosecution?

Dominic Grieve: I would not normally comment on the role I have to carry out as Attorney-General in the public interest and not as a Minister of the Crown, but there is no secret in the fact that, as matters stand, I have received no referral whatsoever in relation to any civil contempt of court.

William Cash: Does the Attorney-General accept that the fault in this case lies with Parliament itself in not repealing the Human Rights Act 1998? As the then shadow Attorney-General, I advocated doing that and it remained Conservative policy until the general election. Does he accept that it is about time that we legislated on our own terms in Westminster to deal with these matters, and in terms of parliamentary privilege, to ensure that the British voter actually sees legislation that is what he wants and that we have British law for British judges?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend raises a perfectly legitimate issue, which may doubtless be the subject of debate in this Chamber. Like me, he will recall that when we enacted the Human Rights Act the issue of the balance between privacy and freedom of expression was extensively debated. Indeed, not only was it extensively debated, but its detail was looked at, as were its possible implications in respect of introducing a privacy law into our national legal framework. Therefore, it cannot be said that the consequences that flow from it can be unexpected; I strongly suspect that he predicted them at the time, and I believe I did too.

Eilidh Whiteford: I hope that the Attorney-General will acknowledge the independence of the Scottish courts. Will he confirm that no application was made for an interdict at the Court of Session on the news reported in the Sunday Herald yesterday and will he assure the House that no legal action will be taken against the newspaper or its staff?

Dominic Grieve: Scotland enjoys and has always enjoyed a separate legal system. It follows that orders made by the courts of England and Wales, generally speaking, do not have application there, although there are at times some exceptions.

John Hemming: With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter, it is obviously impracticable to imprison them all, and with reports that Giles Coren also faces imprisonment—

Mr Speaker: Order. Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman—although I know that he has already done it—that occasions such as this are for raising the issues of principle involved, not for seeking to flout orders for whatever purpose. If the hon. Gentleman wants to finish his question in an orderly way, he may do so.

John Hemming: The question is, what is the Government’s view on the enforceability of a law that clearly does not have public consent?

Dominic Grieve: It is our duty as parliamentarians to uphold the rule of law.

Chuka Umunna: I should like to return to the response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell). Although it is right that we do not have a strict separation of powers in this country, we adhere to the principle to some degree as it is accepted that we write the laws and the courts interpret and apply them. In that context, does the Attorney-General agree that Members of this House should exercise extreme caution when, as we have in some senses just witnessed, they take it on themselves to breach court orders using parliamentary privilege when they are not fully apprised of all the evidence in the way that the judges who hear the cases are appraised? We have the power, after all, to change the law if we see fit.

Dominic Grieve: Yes.

Peter Bone: May I take a contrary view? Members of this House have absolute privilege that they use responsibly and for judges to criticise Members of this House seems to me to be an abuse of their power. Will the Attorney-General spell out quite clearly that judges should butt out?

Dominic Grieve: I have to say to my hon. Friend that I am not quite sure what they are supposed to butt out from. If he is suggesting that they should butt out from doing their duty and following the judicial oath that they take, I am afraid I disagree with him.

Gisela Stuart: Could the Attorney-General reaffirm for the benefit of all Members that if this House does not like the way the judiciary interprets law, it is up to this House to change it?

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Lady is absolutely right and it is therefore open to this House and the Government to consider those issues. To return to where I started in my answer to the urgent question, a mechanism has been put in train that will, I hope, allow, on the basis of some cross-party consensus, a sensible view to be taken of how the law can be improved in this area.

Menzies Campbell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that some important issues of principle and of the constitutional rights of Members of Parliament are under discussion, as some of the exchanges have already demonstrated? Is it not now time for either the Joint Committee that he mentioned or a special Select Committee of the House of Commons to determine the boundaries of privilege in the modern day and age, some of which were touched on by the special Select Committee that examined the case of Mr Damian Green in the last Parliament?

Dominic Grieve: May I reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that matter is in the Government’s programme? Indeed, there should be a draft Bill on that very subject before the end of the Session.

Tom Watson: The internet heralded the age of information abundance, whereas once newspapers could enforce information scarcity. Our dilemma is caused by our failure to respond to that challenge as a Parliament, so I welcome the review. Given that at least one person who took out a super-injunction is also talking to solicitors about the illegal hacking of their phones, does the Attorney-General not think that to balance this up we must consider the massive covert and illegal invasion of individuals’ privacy so that we can have a framework of laws that protects people from technological invasion of their privacy while also allowing freedom of the press?

Dominic Grieve: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the question about phone hacking is currently the subject of criminal investigation. For that reason, I am sure he will appreciate why it is not a subject on which I wish to comment further in any detail, but I will say that the Government are perfectly aware of the issue.

Philip Davies: Surely, we cannot have a situation in which celebrities court positive publicity to gain sponsorship and other endorsements and then rush to take out super-injunctions when negative publicity comes their way. There are not many cases of people taking out injunctions regarding positive publicity. Does the Attorney-General therefore agree that what we do not need are more privacy laws, of which we seem to have plenty at the moment, and that we need freedom-of-speech and freedom-of-the-press laws?

Dominic Grieve: May I say to my hon. Friend that our laws already provide very substantial protection for the freedom of the press? The question arises as to how a balance should be struck. Even before the operation of the Human Rights Act, the power of the courts to protect the vulnerable and children, for example, was well established in our law. In that sense it is not a novelty. That balance is always going to be a subject of legitimate debate and I hope that, as a result of the steps that the Government are taking, that debate will take place.

Eric Joyce: The Attorney-General has rightly concentrated on matters of law but does he agree that equally important, arguably, are matters of technology? If it is not technologically possible to enforce a particular law, there is hardly any point in having that law in the first place.

Dominic Grieve: I am not sure that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Ultimately, the enforceability of any order made by a court depends first on people obeying the law and, secondly, if people do not obey the law, on the capacity to bring them to justice and to make the court’s order felt on them. That is a slightly different issue but, as I acknowledged earlier and as was acknowledged by the Lord Chief Justice when he gave his press statement last Friday, the multiplicity of available communication media certainly do pose a particular challenge for the courts.

Robert Buckland: I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend could assist me with a point raised by the Neuberger report—the change allowing members of the media to be present when applications are made. Am I right in presuming that the press will be able to report unsuccessful applications with full details? If so, will that perhaps serve as a further check on the makers of these applications in future?

Dominic Grieve: I think that will be very much a matter for the discretion of the judge hearing the case. I do not think that one could make some kind of blanket pronouncement as to how it would operate in practice, but clearly the merit of the course of action being proposed is that it would remove the element of total secrecy, which—I can well see this argument—fuels speculation and in some cases, I have little doubt, a lack of understanding as to why the application was made in the first place, whether it was successful or not.

Matthew Offord: I think that we all agree in the House that the law should be used to protect the vulnerable and not to hide the misdemeanours of those with large cheque books, but does my right
	hon. and learned Friend agree that we have found ourselves in this situation because of the behaviour of some of the newspaper press? Super-injunctions have emerged because of the ineffectual and impotent way in which the Press Complaints Commission works, but we can regulate that and give ourselves greater protection from abuse.

Dominic Grieve: Looking at the matters that have been complained of recently, it seems to me fairly noteworthy that the press appear generally to observe the terms of injunctions against them. Indeed, from that point of view the injunction system appears to be quite effective; it is in other respects, such as the blogosphere and Twitter, that the difficulty emerges. What is absolutely clear is that breaches of court orders should not take place.

Ben Bradshaw: Following on from that question, does the Attorney-General agree that members of the Press Complaints Commission are the last people who should be policing this area—an idea that has apparently been floated by the Prime Minister—given their feeble record and complete failure over the phone-hacking scandal?

Dominic Grieve: The question of what role the Press Complaints Commission may play is clearly another subject that the House may wish to consider. I am not sure that I entirely subscribe to the right hon. Gentleman’s very pessimistic view of the Press Complaints Commission. I have seen examples where, it seems to me, it has operated quite effectively. That is a further reason why that may be a sensible area for debate.

Stewart Jackson: I welcome the review, but does the Attorney-General share with me the concern at the deeply sinister and Kafkaesque prospect, under the present super-injunction regime, that an unnamed journalist could be imprisoned in a secret court for having revealed the name of a hitherto anonymous personality who had a lot of money to bring that legal action? That is more like the actions of a state such as North Korea or Zimbabwe than the United Kingdom.

Dominic Grieve: I am not going to comment on individual cases.

Tom Brake: Does the Attorney-General agree that in seeking a solution we need to balance sensitively the right to respect for private and family life with freedom of expression and fair and public hearing, but we must avoid rushed legislation and we must as far as possible future-proof the legislation against any technological changes?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, and that is why I hope the route proposed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today commends itself to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although we must use the naming of individuals in the House with great caution, a quick trip into the blogosphere and the Twittersphere, to use his words, would have
	revealed the names of those two individuals? Does he agree that what is happening in relation to injunctive law is bringing the law into wide public disrepute? Although I welcome the setting up of the committee, does he agree that ultimately there will be a need for a change in the law to clarify the matter?

Dominic Grieve: As I indicated at the outset, it is possible for Parliament to enact changes to the law. The fact that the courts may not be able to and may not seek to control everything that might be said in breach of an injunction does not necessarily mean that that injunction does not have a valid purpose. It can at least limit the circulation of the damage, even if it cannot stop it. So for those reasons—we do not live in a perfect world—I do not think that the fact that an injunction can be breached and may be breached by some individuals invalidates it, although a point can sometimes be reached where a matter becomes so public and the currency so total that the existence of the injunction becomes pointless.

Dominic Raab: I welcome the review. Twittergate is just the latest example of judicial legislation distorting the balance of human rights under article 8 of the European convention. There have been other examples recently, including the defeating of deportation orders under article 8 in relation to convicted criminals. The Attorney-General rightly points out that there is a big difference between judges interpreting the law and judges making new law, which is for elected representatives. Does he agree that the Human Rights Act has at least contributed to undermining that separation of powers?

Dominic Grieve: In constructing the Human Rights Act, I do not think Parliament can be described as anything other than open-eyed as to what it intended to do about privacy law. It debated the issue extensively, there was a great deal of polemic on the Floor of the House, and it put in section 12 to try to emphasise that the balance should be in favour of freedom of expression. I am well aware of the fact that the way that interpretation has taken place has come in for criticism. It is also true, and the point was made by the Lord Chief Justice on Friday, that a remarkable feature of many of these orders is that they have never been appealed or taken further once they have been granted, so the development of case law in this area has as a result, on some of the matters complained of, not necessarily taken place. We clearly set out a framework and asked the judiciary to interpret it. Whether we were right or wrong to do that is a matter of legitimate public debate.

Julian Huppert: I agree with the Attorney-General that there is a balance to be struck between privacy and freedom of expression, but does he share my grave concern that how that balance is struck seems to depend more on the wealth of the individual concerned than on the facts of the case? Will he make sure that in any legislation or any other changes that happen, all people have access to the law, regardless of their wealth, whether in this area, libel reform or any other aspect?

Dominic Grieve: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, that is ultimately a matter for my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, with regard to the legal aid framework, but it is right to say that the vulnerable in our society do
	enjoy legal aid in order to bring cases before the courts and, indeed, to get the help necessary to do so. It is perhaps also worth pointing out, as the Lord Chief Justice said on Friday, that a slightly odd feature of these cases, although an understandable one, is that those people in whom the media have an interest appear to be those who are very wealthy.

Rosemary Nelson Inquiry Report

Owen Paterson: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the report into the death of Rosemary Nelson, which is being published this afternoon. Mrs Nelson, a solicitor, was murdered close to her home in Lurgan, County Armagh, on 15 March 1999 when a bomb attached to her car exploded. Responsibility for the murder was claimed by the so-called “loyalist” paramilitary group, the Red Hand Defenders.
	I will first set out the report’s main conclusions before moving on to outline its findings on the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Northern Ireland Office and the murder investigation. I will also set out the context in which this tragic event happened. The inquiry was established by the previous Government and was asked to determine
	“whether any wrongful act or omission by or within the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Northern Ireland Office, Army or other state agency facilitated her death or obstructed the investigation of it, or whether attempts were made to do so; whether any such act or omission was intentional or negligent; whether the investigation of her death was carried out with due diligence; and to make recommendations.”
	I would like to put on the record my thanks to Sir Michael Morland and his fellow panel members Dame Valerie Strachan and Sir Anthony Burden for their work. They have produced a detailed account of the circumstances surrounding this despicable and cowardly murder. This is a lengthy report that has cost £46.5 million and taken six years to complete. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in hoping that it brings a measure of resolution to Rosemary Nelson’s family.
	The report finds that
	“There is no evidence of any act by or within any of the state agencies we have examined (the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Northern Ireland Office, the Army or the Security Service) which directly facilitated Rosemary Nelson’s murder”.
	The report goes on to say that
	“we cannot exclude the possibility of a rogue member or members of the RUC or the Army in some way assisting the murderers to target Rosemary Nelson”,
	although the panel does not provide specific evidence on this.
	Those who are looking for evidence that the state conspired in or planned the death of Rosemary Nelson will not find it in this report. It does say that
	“there were omissions by state agencies, which rendered Rosemary Nelson more at risk and more vulnerable; the combined effect of these omissions by the RUC and the NIO was that the state failed to take reasonable and proportionate steps to safeguard the life of Rosemary Nelson. If Rosemary Nelson had been given advice about her safety and offered security measures, then assuming that she had accepted such advice and security measures, the risk to her life and her vulnerability would have been reduced”.
	The report does however recognise that
	“There is nothing that any organisation can do that will infallibly prevent a murder. What can be reasonably looked for is a reduction in the risk”.
	I am profoundly sorry that omissions by the state rendered Rosemary Nelson more at risk and more vulnerable. It is also deeply regrettable that, despite a very thorough police investigation, no one has been charged for this terrible crime.
	On the investigation into the murder, which was led by a senior police officer from outside Northern Ireland, the report describes it as “exhaustive, energetic and enterprising”, concluding that
	“there is no evidence of any deliberate attempt by any of the organs of the state corporately to obstruct the investigation”.
	On the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the panel finds that
	“some members of the RUC publicly abused and assaulted Rosemary Nelson on the Garvaghy Road in Portadown in 1997, having the effect of legitimising her as a target.”
	The report states that
	“we believe that there was some leakage of intelligence which we believe found its way outside the RUC”;
	that
	“the leakage increased the danger to Rosemary Nelson’s life”;
	and that
	“some members of the RUC made abusive and/or threatening remarks about Rosemary Nelson to her clients.”
	In addition, the report states that
	“in assessing whether or not Rosemary Nelson’s life was at risk, RUC Special Branch failed to take into account all the intelligence and the open information available to them…RUC management negligently failed to intervene to prevent their officers from uttering abuse and threats to defence solicitors, including Rosemary Nelson…Local RUC management failed to follow through promised action to pay special attention to Rosemary Nelson’s office and home addresses…there was no analysis or evaluation of intelligence relevant to Rosemary Nelson…there was a corporate failure by the RUC to warn Rosemary Nelson of her vulnerability and offer her security advice”.
	In relation to the Northern Ireland Office, the report concludes that
	“the NIO did not press the RUC hard enough for full replies to their questions concerning Rosemary Nelson's personal security…the NIO should have proactively questioned the RUC as to what factors were considered in producing a threat assessment…the NIO dealt in a mechanistic way with correspondence from Non-Governmental Organisations raising concerns about Rosemary Nelson's safety.”
	The panel, in its findings relating to the accusations of obstruction by the state in the murder investigation, identifies:
	“Special Branch gave levels of information unprecedented in the history of the RUC to the Murder Investigation Team”.
	The panel also finds that the investigation team had wide-ranging terms of reference and was generously resourced, but that special branch co-operation was incomplete. Special branch was, it states,
	“over-possessive about their intelligence…unjustifiably resentful and defensive about any enquiry which they interpreted as treating them as potential suspects…omitted to disclose all items of relevant intelligence”.
	The panel concludes, however, that
	“in the main, the investigation was carried out to a high standard, in very difficult conditions”,
	and says:
	“Overall, the investigation of the murder was carried out with due diligence”.
	The panel has chosen not to make any recommendations, pointing to
	“fundamental changes to the organisations that we have been examining and to the context within which they worked”.
	In particular, the panel notes:
	“The Royal Ulster Constabulary has now been replaced by the PSNI, on the lines envisaged by the Patten Commission. Many of the reforms were first proposed, and subsequently implemented, by Sir Ronnie Flanagan…Complaints against the police are now investigated by the independent Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, so the PSNI is not in the position of having to investigate complaints about its own officers…After the murder of Rosemary Nelson, the Key Persons Protection Scheme was amended: defence solicitors were included among those who could qualify for the scheme”.
	The report concludes that
	“we consider that these changes effectively deal with the systemic problems that we saw in the way that the organisations operated”.
	The three panel members say in their foreword:
	“We recognise that the context in which these events happened was extraordinarily difficult. We do not underestimate the problems and personal danger faced by the agencies and individuals whose work we have been examining. For example, during the Troubles, over 300 RUC officers lost their lives and over 7000 were injured; over 700 British military personnel were killed and over 6000 were injured”.
	At times, such personnel stood quite literally between the rule of law and the descent into anarchy. All of us owe them an immense debt of gratitude, and that is something that this Government will never forget.
	The report does make criticisms of the RUC, and we should not seek to gloss over them. But it would be wrong for the criticisms in the report to be used in any way to denigrate the overall record, courage and sacrifice of the RUC. Despite the enormous progress heralded by the agreement, Northern Ireland was still emerging from 30 years of terrorist violence in 1999. With both loyalist and republican dissidents continuing to carry out attacks, the security situation remained dangerous. As the report says,
	“there were violent groups who were implacably opposed to the Peace Process who were prepared to commit sectarian murder”.
	In conclusion, it is clear that just as Lord Saville found no evidence of a conspiracy by the British state, and just as Lord MacLean found no evidence of state collusion in the murder of Billy Wright, so this panel finds no evidence of any act by the state which directly facilitated Rosemary Nelson’s murder.
	This report is a detailed and authoritative account of the circumstances surrounding Rosemary Nelson’s horrific death. Politically motivated violence can never be justified. The whole House will wish to join me in condemning her vile murder and also extending our deepest sympathies to her family. I commend this statement to the House.

Shaun Woodward: Rosemary Nelson was a prominent and diligent human rights lawyer who worked hard to protect the rights of her clients. Rosemary Nelson was also a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister and a friend to many. She was killed by a loyalist paramilitary group shortly after midday on 15 March 1999. I join others in this House in offering my deepest sympathy to her family and her friends.
	Today we have the final determinations of the inquiry. I thank the Secretary of State for a copy of his statement on those determinations and an advance opportunity to read the inquiry report. I also pay tribute to the inquiry chairman, Sir Michael Morland, to his panel members, and to the supporting Law Officers and officials.
	The Secretary of State and I have both read the conclusion of the inquiry report, but I am afraid that I am unable to draw the same comfort about the findings and implications as he has done in his statement. The inquiry raises very serious issues about the police and about the Northern Ireland Office. In recognising this inquiry’s criticisms about policing, the inquiry does not take away our profound admiration for the outstanding courage and bravery of the men and women of the police family—and that of course includes the RUC—and of the Northern Ireland Office, at which I have had the privilege to be Secretary of State. I record again my thanks for the outstanding professionalism and fairness with which it was my experience to work at first hand.
	However, this inquiry makes uncomfortable reading for both agencies. These agencies have undoubtedly, by what they have done, ensured that many lives have been protected from terrorist target. Indeed, we will never know just how many people might have been killed or how many people alive today were targets. However, we can be grateful to these agencies and at the same time set apart wrongdoing and failings. What is clear is that in the case of Rosemary Nelson, her death was not inevitable. The Secretary of State quoted from the report:
	“There is nothing that any organisation can do that will infallibly prevent a murder. What can be reasonably looked for is a reduction in the risk”.
	Well, that reduction was not reasonable. The risk could have been reduced, and it was not reduced. There were failings.
	It is important to separate out the investigation into Mrs Nelson’s murder, which the inquiry described as “exhaustive, energetic and enterprising”, although
	“not perfect in every respect”,
	and, equally importantly, the fact that the inquiry found “no evidence of any” organisations of the state attempting
	“to obstruct the investigation of the murder”.
	We can distinguish this from the failure of measures to protect her life which brought about her murder. Here we have very uncomfortable reading—more uncomfortable than I think the Secretary of State recognises. It is uncomfortable for the RUC and the NIO of that time. Having reached that view, questions should also be asked about the process of threat assessments even today.
	The report disturbs me. Given what was known, why was Rosemary Nelson not protected? That is our question. The report states:
	“She was a very public figure and thence an obvious trophy target.”
	The inquiry concluded:
	“Any reasonable, thorough and objective assessment could only have reached the conclusion that general intelligence, circumstances and recent events indicated that Rosemary Nelson was at significant risk.”
	On the RUC, the inquiry found that “management negligently failed”, that “local RUC management failed”, that there was
	“no analysis or evaluation of intelligence in relation to Rosemary Nelson”,
	and that there was
	“corporate failure to warn Rosemary Nelson of her vulnerability.”
	Of the NIO, the inquiry found that there were omissions rather than commission. The NIO did not press the RUC hard enough for full replies on Mrs Nelson’s security, it did not press the police on disparities between what the NIO was being told about the threat and what the RUC had concluded in its threat assessments, and it was too mechanistic. Crucially, the inquiry says of the NIO that
	“there is no evidence of any internal policy discussion about the treatment of defence lawyers in general or Rosemary Nelson in particular.”
	All this taken together is damning. As the inquiry concludes:
	“The combined effect of these omissions by the RUC and the NIO was that the state failed to take reasonable and proportionate steps to safeguard the life of Rosemary Nelson.”
	It continues:
	“If Rosemary Nelson had been given advice about her safety and offered security measures, then assuming she accepted such advice and security measures, the risk to her life and her vulnerability would have been reduced.”
	A worrying feature of the report is the incompleteness, or what some might see as evasiveness, in giving proper answers to reasonable questions from the inquiry. The inquiry states that it was not told that special branch
	“did not maintain a paper file on Rosemary Nelson”.
	Indeed, when Colin Port, who led the investigation into the murder asked about that,
	“he was given an incomplete answer, and as regards whether Rosemary Nelson had an SB number, an incorrect one.”
	In fact, the inquiry found that Mrs Nelson had not one number, but two. It was told that if she had had a special branch number, a special branch file would most likely have been created. The inquiry generously says:
	“We cannot exclude the possibility that a paper file on Rosemary Nelson did at one time exist, but was lost or destroyed.”
	It beggars belief, given that no one has yet been convicted of Mrs Nelson’s murder, that files of the state could have been allowed to be destroyed or lost during an ongoing murder investigation. That matters, because it is clear that specific views were formed by police officers that would undoubtedly have added to the risks to Mrs Nelson had they reached wider circulation.
	The report needs to be read carefully. The inquiry found—you will be worried by this, Mr Speaker—that special branch in the south region, in the preparation for an application for a warrant to be signed by the Secretary of State, but which was not ultimately authorised, said of Mrs Nelson and the Provisional IRA that
	“she openly supports their cause and intelligence states she has flouted the law”,
	and that
	“Nelson uses her legal training to assist PIRA in every way she can and it is clear Nelson is a dedicated Republican”.
	That is why the conclusions of the report are so disturbing.
	We may never be sure of the specific consequences of these failings. However, the inquiry states that there was an incident of abuse and assault on Mrs Nelson by members of the RUC, that there was a
	“leakage of intelligence which we believe found its way outside the RUC.”
	It states that the leakage and threatening remarks
	“would have had the subsequent effect of legitimising her as a target in the eyes of Loyalist terrorists.”

Mr Speaker: Order. I am loth on a matter of enormous importance and sensitivity to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he has substantially exceeded his allotted time already. I know that he will bring his remarks to a speedy close.

Shaun Woodward: I will, Mr Speaker.
	The question that the Secretary of State must address is whether those acts of omission, negligence, failure and prejudice and a mechanistic Northern Ireland Office mean that we are in a very different position from the conclusion of the Wright inquiry, contrary to his statement today. I urge him to examine Justice Cory’s original proposals for the inquiries. Collusion is not just a matter of commission; it may also be an issue of omission. This does not prove collusion, but today the Secretary of State has been too hasty in his dismissal.

Owen Paterson: I have to say that I regret the shadow Secretary of State’s tone. I made it quite clear in my statement that there were criticisms of state agencies, and on his basic question—if there was a question—of why Mrs Nelson was not protected, I made it quite clear that there were analyses of her security status by the RUC and she was twice deemed not to be at risk. However, the key point is that she did not ask for protection.
	It is not for me, who read the report overnight, or the right hon. Gentleman, who has had a shorter time than I had to read it, to second-guess this enormous work. What comes out quite clearly from this very lengthy report is that there were omissions, and that if they had not happened, the risk to Mrs Nelson would have been reduced. However, the report is quite clear that, sadly:
	“There is nothing that any organisation can do that will infallibly prevent a murder. What can be reasonably looked for is a reduction in the risk.”
	It is the fact that we did not reduce the risk—his Government was in charge at the time—for which I have apologised on behalf of the British state.

Laurence Robertson: May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the report and his statement? Does he agree that anybody who has had the privilege of meeting the excellent police officers who protect people in Northern Ireland against vicious terrorist attacks will know that they are the most professional and dedicated people anybody could ever wish to see?
	With regard to the criticisms of the RUC, is the Secretary of State now satisfied as far as he can be that measures are in place for anybody who might be perceived to be in danger in Northern Ireland, given the worrying terrorist threat that still exists?

Owen Paterson: I am very grateful to the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for the tone of his question. As the report makes quite clear, all the main agencies have now been changed. We are confident that the home protection scheme offers a completely different type of protection from that described in the report.

Paul Murphy: I vividly recall the tragic death of Mrs Nelson, and indeed attending her funeral. It fell upon me, some years later, to set up this
	inquiry. The Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) were right to praise the police service in Northern Ireland for all the great work that it does, but the report is a sorry and tragic one. Does the Secretary of State not agree that ultimately, the state simply did not protect Mrs Nelson enough, and that we must learn lessons from that? The acts of omission that occurred were tragic, and they should never, ever occur again.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I pay tribute to him for his service as Secretary of State. He is absolutely right that the report makes it quite clear that there were omissions, and that if the Northern Ireland Office or the RUC had done certain things, the risk would have been reduced. However, it was also incumbent on Mrs Nelson to accept security advice at the time and ask for security help. I made it clear in my statement that I regret that those omissions meant that the risk was not reduced, but we have to face the fact that under the circumstances, it was impossible to eliminate the risk.

Patrick Mercer: May I associate myself with both the tone and the content of the Secretary of State’s comments, and with the congratulations that both he and the shadow Secretary of State have given to the Royal Ulster Constabulary?
	To follow on from the last question, can the Secretary of State assure us that the current scheme for protecting those who are vulnerable in a similar way to Rosemary Nelson extends both north and south of the border?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question, but we have jurisdiction in Northern Ireland and not in southern Ireland.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his report. Having known Rosemary Nelson when we were both students at Queen’s university, Belfast in the mid-1970s, I find this report very disturbing indeed. In particular, it states that
	“we cannot exclude the possibility of a rogue member or members of the RUC or the Army in some way assisting the murderers to target Rosemary Nelson”.
	Does the Secretary of State not agree that that is tantamount to collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and members of the then security services? Will he provide an assurance to Members of this House and to Rosemary’s family that all efforts will be made to pursue those who were responsible for this terrible murder, and that they will be held accountable in the due process of the law as quickly and expeditiously as possible?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, but I must repeat what the report said. This 500-page report took six years and cost £46.5 million, and was conducted by three eminent panellists. They conclude:
	“There is no evidence of any act by or within any of the state agencies we have examined (the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Northern Ireland Office, the Army or the Security Service) which directly facilitated Rosemary Nelson’s murder”.
	The report makes no recommendations such as the hon. Lady suggests.

Kris Hopkins: I agree with the content of the Secretary of State’s statement, and I support his tone—it was extremely appropriate that he spoke in such a way. I do not excuse in any way anybody who did a wrong thing, but I served with members of the RUC—they were extremely brave individuals in their commitment to the service, both on and off duty. Does he agree that the PSNI is a very different creature to the policing arrangements of 1999, and that we, and people on both sides of the community, should take comfort in that?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I paid full tribute to the RUC in my statement, but we do the RUC no favours by glossing over any failings. The report makes trenchant criticisms of those failings, but my hon. Friend is right that policing is quite different today. It has a much broader base of support, and is responsible to a locally elected Minister and Policing Board. That is why the report makes no specific recommendations.

David Simpson: This murder took place in my constituency. Today we have the report, which shows no evidence of collusion in relation to that murder. However, in the same area, 18 RUC officers were butchered by the Provisional IRA. We have had Teebane, La Mon and numerous other atrocities in Northern Ireland. We hear on the rumour mill that another inquiry—into Pat Finucane—could be announced. If so, will the Secretary of State also ensure an inquiry into the 18 deaths of RUC officers that occurred at La Mon and into other atrocities, in the interests of equality?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am fully conscious of the tragedies in his constituency and the area where he lives. In June 1997, very shortly before the events dealt with in the report, Constables Johnston and Graham were murdered in Lurgan. On the Finucane inquiry, I made a written statement to the House in November, and there was an extended period of reflection while we took in representations. I shall make an announcement soon.

Stephen Lloyd: I respect the Secretary of State’s apology. Clearly the Government, to some degree, failed to protect one of our citizens, so it is only right that they apologise. It was the right decision, and I respect the tenor of his apology. It was a desperate time, and Rosemary Nelson’s murder was a desperate act. However, will he give an assurance that the economic cuts faced by Northern Ireland will have no negative impact on the key persons protection scheme? It has been amended and improved since Rosemary Nelson’s desperate murder, but it is vital that it is maintained.

Owen Paterson: The KPPS has been replaced by the home protection scheme, which is now administered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who works diligently on this and assesses each case with great care. I am surprised that my hon. Friend used the word “cuts”, because this time last year we negotiated with the Treasury an extra £50 million, and since then we have negotiated a further £200 million. The Government have promised to stand by Northern Ireland and do what is necessary to bear down on the current security threat.

Naomi Long: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the report, and for his measured and balanced statement. Rosemary Nelson’s murder was a brutal and callous act, and our thoughts and prayers are with her family, friends and colleagues on the release of this sobering report. My thoughts are also with the many other victims and survivors of the troubles in Northern Ireland who fear they will never have justice or even the truth about the circumstances surrounding their own situations. Does he agree that we need an inclusive and comprehensive mechanism to deal with the past and its legacy so that we can build a more stable future for Northern Ireland?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful for the tone of the hon. Lady’s question, which I entirely endorse. One of the other major changes, which is not mentioned in the report, is the establishment of the Historical Enquiries Team, which is looking methodically at the 3,268 cases in which people tragically lost their lives leading up to the agreement. That forms a good basis for working on the terrible losses of the past. She knows that I am considering a range of options and talking to a wide number of people. We will bring forward proposals when we think we can achieve some sort of consensus, but she knows more than anyone how difficult that will be.

Thomas Docherty: The Secretary of State’s statement identified failures by individuals in the RUC who intimidated and harassed Mrs Nelson or leaked information, and obviously there were failures by some civil servants in not pressing the RUC. Will he ask his permanent secretary to take disciplinary action against any of those civil servants still working in the Northern Ireland Office, and will he confirm whether all the individuals in the RUC whom the panel identified as having committed this harassment or leaked this information have now left the PSNI?

Owen Paterson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and suggest that he read the report, which does not make such recommendations.

Points of Order

Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wrote to you over the weekend about a number of security breaches in the House, particularly the theft of laptops from right hon. and hon. Members. I had my laptop and iPad, which I had only just worked out how to use, stolen last Thursday. Since inquiring in Norman Shaw North and with other of its residents, I have been told that a number of laptops have been taken from there. Indeed, just this moment my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) told me that her laptop and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) were stolen recently from the courtyard next to your accommodation in Speaker’s House. I have discussed the matter with colleagues, and they have suggested a number of measures. Either we should set up our own neighbourhood watch in Norman Shaw North, or perhaps when you meet President Obama on Wednesday you could ask him to leave some of the 200 security officers he is bringing with him. On a serious note, in our view it is bad practice that in a building such as this, which has protection from the outside, these thefts are ongoing and getting worse. I seek your advice on what we can do about this serious matter, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for his unsolicited advice, of which, as always, I am appreciative. I commiserate with him on his personal loss, and I extend those commiserations to the hon. Members for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) and for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), and other right hon. and hon. Members similarly deprived. It is an extremely serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman will know that we do not discuss security on the Floor of the House. However, it is incumbent on me, which is why I welcome this opportunity, to make it clear that the matter is being investigated—I hope comprehensively—and certainly I can testify to him that it is being investigated as a matter of urgency. When those investigations have been completed, I hope they will prove profitable.

Gisela Stuart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This House makes the law and this House should comply with it. Given some of the remarks that were made during the urgent question—remarks that, on reflection, will probably be seen as incautious—may I have your reassurance that, irrespective of the setting up of the Committee, this House will have sufficient time to discuss the problems associated with injunctions before the summer recess?

Mr Speaker: This is of course a matter for the House itself. I welcome the hon. Lady’s point of order. As she will know—because she was present for the statement—the Attorney-General has announced that a Joint Committee of both Houses is to be set up. There will naturally be a chance to debate the terms of reference of that Joint Committee in due course. I think I made it clear that I strongly deprecate the abuse of parliamentary privilege to flout an order or score a particular point.
	On the substance of the right and opportunity of Members of Parliament to express their views on this
	extremely important matter, I am pleased to reassure the hon. Lady and the House that there will be opportunities in the ordinary course of events for Members to express their views on these matters, both in relation to the terms of reference and more widely. There are opportunities to debate matters in Government time, Opposition time and Backbench Business Committee time, and through the mechanism of Adjournment debates. I say to the hon. Lady and the House that there is no injunction, super or otherwise, preventing any right hon. or hon. Member from pursuing those avenues. It is important, however, that we recognise the need to temper our privilege with responsibility.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to delay the House with this point of order, but it arises from the answer to Question 1 in Education questions today which was given to me by the Secretary of State for Education. We have been waiting for some time for a response to the inquiry report of the previous Select Committee—the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families—on the training of teachers. There has never been a response, even though other inquiry reports that took place under the previous Government have been responded to since the general election. We are used to a system in this House whereby the Department concerned responds line by line to the Select Committee’s recommendations. The Secretary of State told me that this document—“The Importance of Teaching”, the White Paper that came out in November—was an answer, but there is no reference to that fact in this document, and it is not—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I think he has said enough to make it clear to me that this is not a matter on which I can rule; rather, it is—however disagreeable as far as he is concerned—a matter for the Select Committee on Education, should it wish to address the matter further. I think we shall have to leave it there for today.

Helen Jones: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way in which you can discuss with Ministers the quality of replies being sent to Members? I recently wrote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on an important matter affecting my constituency, and received a reply from the public engagement and recognition unit, rather than from the Minister. It was signed “The correspondence team”—

Fiona Mactaggart: Not even Mrs Adams?

Helen Jones: Not even Mrs Adams, no. Another reply, from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, began: “Dear Mr Marsden”. I am very fond of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), but I do not usually take on his correspondence. Is there anything that you can do to ensure that Members get proper replies from Ministers?

Mr Speaker: I am responsible, at least in part, for the timeliness of replies—I do my best to assist Members in that regard—and also for their courtesy. However, so
	far as their quality is concerned, I feel that I must tell the hon. Lady that she holds out for me a set of powers that I do not possess and a range of abilities to which someone of my modest capacities cannot reasonably aspire.

Mary Creagh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Thursday, you generously granted an urgent question on the Government’s decision not to ban wild animals from circuses. During that discussion, the House was entertained—I think that is the right word—by the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs telling us that such a ban could involve a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 and of the European Union services directive. At the time, I asked the Minister to place that legal advice in the House of Commons Library, but, sadly, it has not yet received it. I have, however, been to the Library myself and looked at the Department’s impact assessment of the regulation of wild animals in travelling circuses. Point No. 81, on page 15, states:
	“There are no human rights issues raised by these proposals.”
	Following on from that, I found on a comment on a blog entitled “What a circus” which states that
	“there are of course valid reasons for exceptions to the rules and restrictions allowed”
	under the EU services directive, and that EU
	“Commission officials are standing ready to discuss the matter”.
	May we have further clarification from Ministers on this matter?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. Some people might think that she is trying to continue the debate that took place on Thursday, although I am not making any such suggestion myself. She did have that urgent question on the subject last week, and, as the House will know, that urgent question was granted by me. I feel sure that there will be other opportunities for her and others to discuss the matter. I would say to her today that this is not a procedural
	matter on which I can rule, but what she has very explicitly said will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench and, very likely, in the relevant departmental office as well.

Thomas Docherty: rose—

Mr Speaker: I imagine that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) thinks that our proceedings would be incomplete without a point of order from him.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful to you, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), will you clarify whether members of the Press Gallery who were following the proceedings this afternoon are covered by the same privilege that we are, when they are reporting the exchanges between hon. Members?

Mr Speaker: The answer to that is yes.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Secretary Theresa May, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Kenneth Clarke, Danny Alexander and James Brokenshire, presented a Bill to abolish control orders and make provision for the imposition of terrorism prevention and investigation measures.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 193) with explanatory notes (Bill 193-EN).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[16th Allotted Day]

Sentencing

Mr Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. Just before I call the shadow Secretary of State to move the motion, may I gently point out to him and the Secretary of State that there is a premium on time and that Back Benchers will be heavily restricted? There is no time limit on Front-Bench speeches, but I am sure that both right hon. Gentlemen will wish to apply a certain self-denying ordinance.

Sadiq Khan: I beg to move,
	That this House opposes changing the maximum discount for custodial sentences to up to 50% for those who plead guilty.
	Should an offender who commits any offence—grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, attempted murder, burglary, mugging, downloading child porn, rape—be given a discount in his or her sentence of up to 50% if they plead guilty at the earliest opportunity? I will deal with the issue in three parts: first, the background to the policy; then I shall move on to its real motivation; thirdly, and finally, I will put my case for why the House should reject that policy.
	Sentencing represents the climax of the court process at the point when a defendant is found guilty or pleads guilty. Judges or magistrates decide within set guidelines on the most appropriate sentence to hand down, basing their decision on a range of factors, including the severity of the offence. Punishment is a key purpose of sentencing—punishing offenders for the crime they have committed—but it is also about deterrence both for society as a whole and to the individual in question, aiming to prevent the offender from committing another offence.
	A key factor not to be underestimated is the protection of the public and the respite provided to communities, but we must also emphasise the importance of rehabilitating offenders. Sentencing provides the opportunity to work with offenders to reduce the chances of their reoffending in the future. It is about focusing on what works to ensure that there is no drift back into a life of crime, but it also provides the opportunity to work with those who have debilitating mental health issues and dependencies on drugs and alcohol.

Stewart Jackson: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is suffering from political amnesia, given that his Government presided over the debacle of failing to deport a huge number of foreign prisoners and were also responsible for the deeply unpopular and failed policy of the early release scheme.

Sadiq Khan: I will deal with both those points. Last week, the Justice Front-Bench team were asked how many of these foreign prisoners they had deported during the 12 months that they had been in power, and the answer was—quote of quotes—“about 60”. As to
	the end-of-custody licence, on four occasions between 1979 and 1997, the previous Conservative Government released prisoners early—without the checks and balances that we had, whereby no serious or violent offenders were let out on our watch.
	How to balance these different purposes of sentencing is in the judges’ discretion, and plea bargaining is also a key part of our sentencing system. Part of plea bargaining is when an offender’s sentence is reduced on submission of a guilty plea. This is an aspect of our sentencing system that has evolved over many decades, becoming more formalised in recent years.

Ben Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman brings up the matter of credits for those who plead guilty and he is right to say that it used to be at the judges’ discretion—until it was made mandatory by the previous Government. The discount of a third, which is given now, is one created by his Government, not by judicial discretion.

Sadiq Khan: I will come on to deal with that point in a moment, but the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said is factually wrong.
	Successive Governments have sought to codify the amount of discount one gets off a sentence for pleading guilty, and the first real attempt at codification came with section 48 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This introduced a requirement for the court to take account of a guilty plea. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) may have been alluding to section 144 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which included statutory provision on reductions in sentences for guilty pleas; the Sentencing Council sought to provide structure and judicial direction in this matter.

David Burrowes: Is it acceptable for a defendant pleading guilty at a timely opportunity—let us say, for an offence of rape—who should have been liable to a tariff of five years, to get a third off, meaning a sentence of 40 months, which would have led, in turn, to the individual being released after 20 months? That would have happened under legislation passed on the right hon. Gentleman’s watch. Indeed, it could have led to an even earlier release if further credit had been given for remorse or co-operation with the police at an interview. Is that acceptable?

Sadiq Khan: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but he will be aware that the maximum discount that can be given on a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity goes up to one third, but if there is overwhelming evidence against the individual, the maximum discount is only 20%. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that, because I know he still practises in the criminal courts.

Charlie Elphicke: The motion expresses the shadow Minister’s disapproval of the 50% discount, but the Green Paper that was published in December 2010 canvassed the possibility in paragraph 216 on page 63. Here we are at the end of May, and only now are the Opposition raising the matter. Is it possible that this is just opportunism?

Sadiq Khan: The consultation ended on 4 March this year, and we made our concerns clear back in December. I shall deal with the timeline in a moment, because it is relevant to the spinning that has taken place over the past seven days.
	Under our current system, if a guilty plea is entered at the first reasonable opportunity, there is discretion for a sentence to be reduced by up to one third. The later in the process the guilty plea is entered, the smaller the reduction becomes. There is a discount of a quarter if the plea is entered once the trial date is set, and a discount of a tenth when it is entered at the door of the court at the time of the trial. As I said earlier, there is a discount of 20% if the plea is entered at the first opportunity but there is overwhelming evidence against the defendant.
	I accept that a sentence discount represents a tension between the delivery of justice and the improving of efficiency in the legal system, but that tension can potentially bring benefits to victims who are spared the trauma of a long period in court. Up until now, the system has always sought certainty that the right balance is being struck. If the sentence reduction is too great, it threatens to undermine the principles of sentencing and public confidence in the system. Worse still, it may mean that justice is not being served.
	The Government’s Green Paper “Breaking the Cycle” proposed a maximum discount of 50% for those who plead guilty at the earliest opportunity. No. 10 and the Lord Chancellor would like us to believe that they are in full consultation mode and are simply “flying a kite” about changing the current practice. I accept that there has been consultation on the proposal, but the Lord Chancellor’s decision to accept a 23% cut in his budget has led to a fixation with reducing the prison population. That fixation has overridden all other objectives, and shows just how out of touch the Government have become. They want to reduce prison numbers not because crime is being reduced or because fewer people need to be in jail, but quite simply because of money.

Richard Graham: In the light of his accusation that the only motivation for the Government’s offer of consultation with options is reducing the prison population, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that between 2007 and 2010, his party’s Government released early the equivalent of the entire current prison population of 80,000?

Sadiq Khan: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not misleading the House intentionally or recklessly, but, as he knows, the maximum time off on end-of-custody licences was 18 days. We are not talking about an additional 17%.

Anna Soubry: Is the right hon. Gentleman honestly telling the House that under the tenure of the last Government there was not a serious and profound problem of overcrowding in our prisons?

Sadiq Khan: I remember that the manifesto on which the hon. Lady stood for election and won her seat stated that the Conservatives would provide the same number of prison places we would.
	The Department’s impact assessment gives the game away. The sentence discount plan provides the Lord Chancellor with the lion’s share of his reduction in prison places. The impact assessment shows that £3,400 of the overall savings from the 6,000 fewer prison places that will be needed as a result of the sentencing package will come from the planned increase in the maximum
	available discount to 50%. I accept that that equates to £130 million a year, but it demonstrates that the Government know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Mark Lancaster: If the right hon. Gentleman expects the House to take his arguments seriously, perhaps he will explain why he and his party failed to make any submission to that Green Paper.

Sadiq Khan: Of all the points that have been made, that is the silliest. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that it is silly to expect a Member to respond to every consultation document when he has other opportunities to make his views known, such as asking questions of the Justice Secretary on the Floor of the House, speaking to the Justice Secretary, and speaking to the Opposition.

Richard Graham: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I ask whether I correctly heard what the right hon. Gentleman said? Did he accuse me of misleading the House in the figures I mentioned in my question to him?

Nigel Evans: As I recall, the right hon. Gentleman said quite the reverse: he said you were not misleading the House intentionally.

Richard Graham: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Did the right hon. Gentleman therefore accept that what I said was factually accurate?

Nigel Evans: To save a bit of time, let me say that it might be more appropriate for that question to be asked in an intervention on the shadow Secretary of State.

Sadiq Khan: I am afraid I have no idea what that point of order was about, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Richard Graham: rose —

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman will have a fourth chance to intervene in a while.

Ben Gummer: rose—

Sadiq Khan: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Ben Gummer: May I help the right hon. Gentleman? I do not like to disagree with my colleagues, but he did make a submission on the Government’s proposals. At the end of last year he was asked by The Guardian whether he agreed with anything the Justice Secretary had said on criminal justice, and his answer was no.

Sadiq Khan: I am happy to set out a timeline of when I have and when I have not agreed with the Lord Chancellor. He and I often comment on the fact that we agree on many issues, but I have said all along that I disagree with this particular proposal. I will discuss the timelines shortly, however.

Margot James: Is not another reason for the dramatic overcrowding of our prisons that the current Government inherited the fact that
	more than 50% of the prisoners given indeterminate sentences—6,000 in total—served longer than the sentence they were given? Is this not another example, at the other end of the sentencing spectrum from the early release scheme, of the chaos we inherited with regard to sentencing policy?

Sadiq Khan: On the one hand we are criticised for prisoners who have been properly checked being released on licence 18 days before their sentence is completed, but on the other it is suggested that people who have been proved to be a danger to the public and are serving indeterminate sentences should be released prematurely to save money, rather than there being proper checks and balances. At present, IPPs—imprisonment for public protection sentences—are imposed on all prisoners convicted of rape offences and all sentences of four years and more. Under the new proposals, the Government are considering changing the regime so that only those sentenced to 10 years or more will receive an IPP sentence. That will be a genuine source of concern to the public throughout the country.

Stephen McCabe: rose —

Sajid Javid: rose —

Sadiq Khan: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall give way to a Member on the Opposition Benches.

Stephen McCabe: Why do we not arrange for all the interventions planted by the Government Whips to be read out at once, so that my right hon. Friend can get on with his speech and we can get on with the debate?

Sadiq Khan: When I was a Whip, the quality of interventions was a lot better than it is today.

David Burrowes: I want to help the shadow Justice Secretary, so I should not be accused of pure opportunism. Does he think it is acceptable that a convicted rapist with a third off their sentence for plea could be released after 20 months: yes or no?

Sadiq Khan: I take it from the hon. Gentleman’s question that he will support our motion when it is put to the vote at 7.15 pm.

David Burrowes: rose—

Sadiq Khan: I have been generous in giving way. The hon. Gentleman can have a third bite at the cherry after I have made some progress.

Charlie Elphicke: rose—

Sadiq Khan: Let me make some progress.

Richard Graham: rose —

Sadiq Khan: I promise to give way to the hon. Gentleman after I have made some progress.
	The consultation period ended on 4 March, so there is no more time for the public to have their say, and it appears that experts and stakeholders who voiced their
	opposition have been ignored. Last Tuesday morning, the Cabinet Sub-Committee signed off the policy, and last Tuesday afternoon my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) asked in Justice questions how giving half off a sentence would help to protect the public. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) replied. He did not say the proposal was still under consultation, or that it was being considered only for non-violent, non-serious or non-sexual offences. He said:
	“I would have thought that a moment’s reflection would make that clear. Let us suppose that someone who is accused of rape co-operates with the authorities…That is one example where there is a definitive benefit”.—[Official Report, 17 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 140.]
	By the bye, when the Lord Chancellor seeks to blame others for trying to introduce “sexual excitement” into the debate, he should look not at journalists or Labour Members, but at his Front-Bench team.
	If there was any doubt that this Government had already made up their mind about this policy, the Lord Chancellor’s answer to my question in last Tuesday’s Justice questions made the position clear. When I pleaded with him to reconsider this proposal, praying in aid not just the Labour party, but judges, victims’ groups and the Government’s own victims commissioner, he said that it would “survive” the consultation.

Sajid Javid: rose —

Sadiq Khan: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has not spoken yet.

Sajid Javid: The right hon. Gentleman is sharing with us his concerns for victims of crime, but his party introduced the Human Rights Act 1998. Just last year alone, more than 200 foreign criminals, including many convicted killers, could not be deported as a direct result of that Act, so would he like to take this opportunity to apologise to the House for putting the rights of criminals before those of victims?

Sadiq Khan: I am delivering a speech in two weeks on the human rights law and I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of it, detailing all the victims who have benefited from the Human Rights Act over the past few years.

Robert Buckland: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the answer given to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in last week’s questions. What would be the Opposition’s attitude had the example of fraud been given? Would we have had all this “bandwaggoning” then?

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman, who knows this area very well, will know that the proposals, which we know have been approved, are for all crimes. If they had been for classes of crime, we could have had a debate about whether or not crime A was in the right category, but this discount of a maximum of 50% is to apply in respect of all crimes. He is right to raise the issue of a broad-brush approach being taken to save money.

Richard Graham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sadiq Khan: I will, because the hon. Gentleman has been trying to get in.

Richard Graham: The shadow Justice Secretary said earlier that he had not quite followed my point, so I will give him a second chance to answer it. The proposal I put to him was that between 2007 and 2010 his party released more than 80,000 prisoners early, 16,000 of whom had committed violent crimes—that figure of more than 80,000 is equivalent to the entire current prison population. So before he and his party get too pious about their track record, will he confirm whether these facts are true or not?

Sadiq Khan: It is a fact that the previous Government released prisoners 18 days early once they had been through the hoops. However, violent criminals, people on the sexual offenders list and people accused of terrorist offences were not released early, and these people were released a maximum of 18 days early and on licence. The hon. Gentleman will also know that on four occasions during the previous Conservative Government prisoners were released early without the checks and balances that we conducted.

Richard Graham: rose—

Sadiq Khan: I think that I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman’s point on more than one occasion and I want to make some progress.
	We also know that the Government had originally scheduled tomorrow—the last day before recess—to be the day on which they published their response to the Green Paper. So when the Prime Minister says at Prime Minister’s questions that this is only a consultation, when No. 10 says that the Ministry of Justice is merely “flying a kite” and when we are told that this is not an across the board reduction in sentence, we know that that is not the case.
	I wish to spend some time talking about why Labour Members believe that the whole House should support our motion and reject this policy. The Green Paper, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate, in last week’s Justice questions, and the Lord Chancellor, on BBC’s “Question Time”, have all said that the maximum 50% discount would apply to all crimes. So it will apply to grievous bodily harm, attempted murder, rape, burglary, muggings, death by dangerous driving and all the other crimes that we can all think of that have such a miserable impact on communities up and down the country. Let us consider the impact of the proposals on some sentences. A convicted rape offender could be back on the streets after only 15 months. Someone convicted of causing actual bodily harm where the assault is premeditated and it results in relatively serious injury could end up serving three months in prison. Criminals convicted of burglary when the occupier is at home could serve as little as 10 weeks in prison. In the case of very serious crimes, where sentences are longer, the additional 17% rise in the discount might have the greatest impact. In such circumstances, an additional 17% translates into reductions of years.

Michael Ellis: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about figures, but does he accept, as regards the figures already mentioned by
	Government Members—the 80,000 prisoners and the 16,000 prisoners who committed violent crimes who were released early under the Labour Government over 13 years—that 181 of those released early committed violent offences including three murders and six sexual offences? Does he accept those figures?

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) commented on the efficiency of the Conservative Whips and I can see that the Lord Chancellor’s Parliamentary Private Secretary is also very effective. I have not seen the note that the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) has been passed by the Lord Chancellor’s PPS, but if he will discuss it with me afterwards I can check whether it is accurate.
	It is not just us who think this policy is wrong. The Sentencing Council, the body charged with offering expert advice on such issues, states that
	“in other common law jurisdictions the largest discount on offer is around a third, with some offering up to 35%. To date no jurisdictions have been identified where the discount is significantly higher than this”.
	It goes on to point out:
	“The Council has not identified any research to date that indicates that an increase in the level of the discount would be likely to increase the volume of early guilty pleas.”
	The only evidence we have seen shows how much money will be saved, and cost is once again being put above good justice.

Rehman Chishti: May I ask the shadow Secretary of State to clarify? Does he agree with the leader of his party, who said:
	“Tougher prison sentences aren’t always the answer”?
	When are they appropriate and when are they not? What does the leader of his party mean?

Sadiq Khan: I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what the leader of my party believes. He thinks that it is inappropriate and offensive both to victims and our criminal justice system if all offenders are given a discount of up to 50% for pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity.
	Further evidence that the Government are out of touch is provided by their Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, Louise Casey, who has argued:
	“A discount of 50% offends many victims, underplays the harm that may have been caused…and can seem to be placing administrative efficiency over justice.”
	Campaign groups such as Justice and the Criminal Justice Alliance also oppose the policy. The judiciary have also been critical. Lord Justice Thomas, vice-president of the Queen’s bench division, and Lord Justice Goldring, senior presiding judge for England and Wales, have said that halving sentences because of guilty pleas will fail to reflect the seriousness of offences.
	The Government’s policy on law and order is a mess. They just do not get it. Before the election, the Prime Minister made promise after promise to get elected. He promised to protect front-line services and he is now cutting 14,000 prison and probation staff. His Government are also cutting front-line police, which we will debate later this evening, and 23 specialist domestic violence courts are being closed. They promised a prison sentence
	for anyone caught in possession of a knife—that promise was broken. They promised honesty in sentencing and that they would introduce minimum and maximum sentences—those promises were broken.

Alan Beith: What did the right hon. Gentleman’s party leader mean when he said:
	“When Ken Clarke says we need to look at short sentences because of high re-offending rates, I’m not going to say he’s soft on crime”?
	Has that gone by the board?

Sadiq Khan: If only the Justice Secretary was investing in alternatives to short sentences and in some of the important, aggressive and intensive work that is required instead of cutting some of those services around the country. I hasten to add that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has voted for some of those cuts. When the Justice Secretary talks about rehabilitation and community sentences—real alternatives—he should invest in them, too.

Charlie Elphicke: The shadow Secretary of State is talking tough on sentencing, but
	“playing tough in order not to look soft makes it harder to focus on what is effective.”
	Surely rehabilitation and education are the things that this House should be debating, not plea bargaining, as they will make the difference.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the importance of dealing with some of the real problems of those who commit offences and are found guilty, and I am all in favour of aggressive intervention within prison—and outside it for non-violent offenders. The problem is that the Justice Secretary, by accepting the 20% cut to his budget, is taking away some of the resources and skills that are required, especially with possibly 14,000 probation and prison staff losing their jobs. That expertise, skill and experience is being lost, arguably, when it is most required.
	I have said on many occasions—this has been prayed against me this afternoon—at the Dispatch Box, to the Justice Secretary directly and in the media that I am happy to work with the Government and the Lord Chancellor to make changes in our criminal justice system to help reduce reoffending, cut crime and make our communities safer, based on what works where evidence shows its effectiveness, but nothing in the plans will reduce reoffending or do justice. They are a recipe for disaster and they confirm how out of touch the Government are with the real world.
	I do not want this debate to descend into one about whether people are tough on crime or soft on crime. It is about what works and what is the right thing to do. It is about understanding how our criminal justice system has the full confidence of victims, the families of victims, the judiciary and the general public, all of whom are integral to its effectiveness. It is about understanding the value of justice and about willingness to pay the right price for it. I ask colleagues on both sides of the Chamber to think very carefully about this when voting on the motion.

Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
	“deplores the previous Government’s failure to tackle the national scandal of reoffending and its mismanagement of the justice system; notes that discounts for guilty pleas have been an established principle of common law for decades, and that they can speed up justice and spare victims and witnesses the ordeal of waiting and preparing to give evidence at trial; and welcomes the Government’s intention to overhaul sentencing to deliver more effective punishment for offenders and increased reparation for victims and to reform offenders to cut crime.”
	I welcome the shadow Secretary of State’s coming to the Dispatch Box and moving the motion, which took me rather by surprise when it was tabled at the last minute last week. At one point, he gave a clear exposition of the opinions of the Leader of the Opposition on the encouragement that is given for an early guilty plea. No doubt we will discover at some stage how many days ago the Leader of the Opposition came to that conclusion, but I think it is rather more the right hon. Gentleman’s than his leader’s.
	The shadow Secretary of State also, quite fairly sometimes when giving way to interventions, said that there were substantial parts of the proposed reforms with which he was in broad agreement with the Government, and he offered to work with my colleagues and me in that regard. However, he tried to get away from that by saying that he would support me if it were not for the reductions in public expenditure in my Department to which I am submitting. I regard it as being in the national interest to make reductions in public expenditure in most Departments. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that my Department should be totally exempt from any reductions in public expenditure at all, perhaps he would indicate in which other part of the public service he would volunteer reductions. With respect—I do not normally tender such advice—the weakness of the Labour party is that it does not have the first idea when it is going to stop denying the need for any reductions in public expenditure. There are some perfectly reasonable reductions to be made in the criminal justice system, but that is not the principle motive for reform. The principle motive is to make the criminal justice system better and to tackle some of the problems we have inherited, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have touched on.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) was very generous in giving way and we all appreciated that, but there will be no Back-Bench speeches if I give way too frequently. I will give way in a second.
	Let me get one thing out of the way first. I have always believed, along with every sensible person, that Britain needs a criminal justice system that is effective in properly punishing offenders for their wrongdoing and in protecting the public from further crime. When I took office as Justice Secretary it seemed to me perfectly obvious that that had to be the first priority for all my policies. That is self-obvious; it is a platitude. The Government’s policy, and my first duty, is to punish
	crime and have an effective system for protecting the public from further crime. The problem that I face, which causes the reforms, is the fact that I inherited a system that was not effective in protecting against offenders’ committing further crime or even in punishing offenders. So that is at the forefront of where we are going.
	Without going over all the exchanges that we have just had, let me explain briefly what we have taken over, which causes the need for the proposed reform. Our prisons are pretty nasty, unpleasant places, far from the holiday camps they are sometimes made out to be. The people in most of them pass their days in a state of enforced idleness, quite a few of them making some tougher friends than they have had in the past, and not facing up to what they have done. That is not what I think of as a satisfactory and effective punishment. But a bigger scandal still is our system’s failure to protect the public from future crime committed by offenders after completion of their time inside. Reoffending rates in this country, as we have taken over the system now, are straightforwardly dreadful.

Philip Davies: The Secretary of State has made much of the fact that short-term prison sentences lead to higher rates of reoffending than longer-term prison sentences. Given that his proposals now are to give people a 50% discount on their original sentence, plus they will be let out 50% of the way through their time in prison, and given that short sentences do not work, as he says, why is he so determined to make long prison sentences into short prison sentences?

Kenneth Clarke: The point that I make is not the one that hair-splits the variations between different forms of sentence. All our reoffending rates are very bad. I have no intention of addressing the sentencing tariffs for any offence in this country. I have no proposals for reducing the overall powers of the courts to deal with any crime. What we are talking about is the difference between someone who pleads guilty, particularly at an early stage, and someone who makes the witnesses and the victims go through the crime. That is what I will address.
	Ever since I published the proposals five months ago, although we have not faced any clear alternatives or views from the Opposition, I faced a debate about my apparent desire to let prisoners out and reduce the sentences. I have no such desire; nor do I use statistics to illustrate the need for that. What I am talking about—

Julian Lewis: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Kenneth Clarke: Let me continue briefly. I want to get on to the quite small proposal in our overall reforms that this debate and the publicity of the past few days have focused on. Let me explain what the reoffending problem is, because that is at the core of the Government’s policy and my proposals.
	Within a year of leaving jail, half of Her Majesty’s guests will have been reconvicted of further offences. For adults released from short-term sentences the figure is 60%. For young offenders leaving custody it rises to three-quarters. The same people cycle around the system endlessly, costing endless suffering to victims and, for those released from short sentences alone, costing between £7 billion and £10 billion a year to society. That is the
	key part of the penal system that is not working. I offer this analysis because it throws into sharp relief the record of the Labour politicians who are now criticising bits of our proposed reforms. What I have just described is part of the legacy of the previous Government.

Julian Lewis: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Kenneth Clarke: Let me finish describing the legacy of the previous Government, then we will move to the more constructive matter of my reforms and I will give way to my hon. Friend.
	I have not forgotten, and I am sure the public have not forgotten either, what 13 years of Labour government was like in this field, despite the attempts of the right hon. Member for Tooting to skate over some of it. We had 13 years of eye-catching initiatives, schemes, meddling and prescription that made a complete Horlicks of the criminal justice system. We had more than 20 Criminal Justice Acts. Thousands of new criminal offences were created. Senior judges complained that
	“Hell is a fair description of the problem of statutory interpretation”
	when talking of this stream of legislation. We had a 39% increase in the number of prisoners in our jails—it was not planned and it was not policy—with the cost to taxpayers rising by two thirds in real terms.
	And what for? That was meant to be the embodiment of the policy of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime—an attempt to give reality to an admittedly rather catchy slogan. What we got was a sentencing policy so chaotic and badly managed that, as my hon. Friends quite rightly keep emphasising, the previous Government had to let out early 80,000 criminals, who promptly went on to commit more than 1,000 crimes, including alleged murders and one rape. We had a system under which more than 1,000 foreign national offenders were released without being considered for deportation—the total number of foreign prisoners in our jails doubled during Labour’s period in office. We had a system under which offenders serving community sentences in practice usually completed only one or two days of unpaid work each week. Above all, as I keep emphasising, there was the national scandal throughout Labour’s period in office—not a new problem—that the exorbitantly high reoffending rates went completely ignored.
	Why was that? A recent quote from the right hon. Member for Tooting is worth repeating, as he gave an extremely good description of what went wrong and what was driving Labour’s policy. Speaking to the Fabian Society about New Labour’s record on this subject just two months ago, he said that
	“playing tough in order not to look soft made it harder to focus on what is effective”.
	He gets a murmur of approval from the Conservative Back Benches, and certainly from those of us who had to witness the effect of that policy.
	Let me move on to our proposed reforms, including the one to which the Opposition’s motion refers. What are the problems that we are now tackling and that our large package of reforms seeks to address? First, criminal trials are needlessly long, drawn out and expensive. The court experience is often deeply unpleasant and almost always uncomfortable for victims, witnesses, jurors and
	most people who have anything to do with it. As I have said, at least half of all crimes are committed by people who have already been through the criminal justice system. More than one in 10 adults in prison have never been in paid employment, almost a fifth of prisoners who have used heroin did so for the first time while in prison, and one in five appears to have mental health problems. If we wish to take this subject seriously and really want to protect society and the victims of crime, we must recognise that that is the context of today’s debate.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way at last. He is talking about practical studies on how to deal with prisoners with mental health problems, such as the work done by the Bradley review. I will go along with him on those issues, but I do not understand what studies he has done on the precise issue that we are debating today and on the effectiveness of early guilty pleas. It is clear that already two thirds of Crown court cases that result in a conviction involve people who have pleaded guilty. More than 10,000 of those cases in 2008-09 were at the door of the court but could easily have been dealt with in a magistrates court. Why is he not acting to ensure that those guilty pleas happen in a magistrates court, rather than having this widespread policy that will lead to violent criminals being let off?

Kenneth Clarke: On Lord Bradley’s report and the problem of mentally ill people in prison, it seems plain from the hon. Lady’s intervention that she agrees with me. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I are working on ways to divert people from prisons, in proper cases and with proper protection of the public, to places where they can be more sensibly and suitably treated. In that respect the hon. Lady and I are in total rapport.
	What I am suggesting about the system of guilty pleas, and the reason I have described the unpleasantness of going to court for most people who unwillingly go there as victims and witnesses, is that although most cases wind up with guilty pleas, more should do so and far too many such pleas are made ages after the event and at the last possible moment. I shall explain in a moment how we are addressing that problem, because the long-standing system we have at the moment is not working well enough.

Julian Lewis: Will my right hon. and learned Friend allow me?

Kenneth Clarke: Let me just take our proposal on early guilty pleas. Let me get into that. I am sorry to be unkind to my hon. Friend, but I have to bear in mind the people trying to be called, otherwise there will be no BackBenchers’ debate, and as someone who was until recently a Back Bencher for many years, I always used to find it irritating when we had a short Opposition day debate.

Chris Bryant: You always got called early.

Kenneth Clarke: An advantage the hon. Gentleman will have one day.
	From the proposals of the right hon. Member for Tooting, I cannot quite see any difference in principle between the two sides of the debate. It is, and always has been, a well recognised and fundamental practice in this country that those who lie their way through a trial and are ultimately found guilty should face a greater punishment than those who own up early, take responsibility for their crime and commit to making amends. That has taken place for at least the past 40 years. I suspect that anybody here who does enough research will find that, for the past century, people who fought it out and braved it out got a longer sentence than those who put their hands up early and pleaded guilty.
	What is the purpose of that practice? The public are sometimes startled when they hear that that is the practice, though it always—always—has been in the courts of this country. The purpose is, as we have already stressed, because of the situation of victims and witnesses, above all. No one should underestimate the relief that is felt by anybody who is a victim of crime and has complained to the police about it when they are told that the offender is going to admit to it, and that they, the victim, are not going to be put through an ordeal in court. The witnesses feel equally relieved. It is far, far worse when someone fights on, because often the victim finds that on public evidence and in a court of law they are being accused of lying, of bad behaviour, of promiscuity or of whatever it is that the defendant is trying to run. That is why the justice system of this country has always included the practice. It also saves an awful lot of police time, an awful lot of Crown Prosecution Service costs and everything else.

Julian Lewis: On that point, will my right hon. and learned Friend allow me?

Kenneth Clarke: I will give way on that point, but I just say finally that it is a pity practising lawyers have always referred to the practice as the guilty plea “discount”, because that is not actually the best way of explaining it to a sensible member of the public. I give way to my hon. Friend at last.

Julian Lewis: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his generosity in giving way. He talks about what victims feel, and I always thought that victims felt very unhappy with the previous Government’s policy of letting many criminals out automatically halfway through their sentences. When in opposition we always used to talk about honesty in sentencing, so are we going to change that policy, or are people going to be let out automatically halfway through a sentence which has already been reduced by half as a result of the new measure under discussion?

Kenneth Clarke: Halfway through the sentence, people are released on licence, therefore they are liable to recall. If they reoffend, they are brought back; they are not free of their conviction for some time. We are going to address not just release on licence or supervision on licence, but what more can be done once people are out of immediate custody in order to increase the chances of their not reoffending. That is where we get into payment-by-results schemes, and that is why I already
	have a contract at Peterborough prison, which I inherited, and a new one at Doncaster prison, whereby we will pay more to providers who stop such people coming back when they leave prison. That is not for today, but it is a key part of our reforms, and I do not think that any Member opposes it.
	Let me move on to what we are debating. We have the decades-long principle of offering for an early plea a reduction of up to one third on the sentence that a judge hands down. The previous Government made that clearer, because they calmly allowed the Sentencing Guidelines Council to spell out the one third, and it was actually made more binding on the courts in 2009. If anybody in the Opposition is against in principle the idea of what I say is unfortunately called a “discount” for a plea, why have they not mentioned it for the past 13 years? Why was the previous Government’s policy based on that principle and on the arguments that I have just raised? Why are we readdressing this?

Emma Reynolds: rose —

Kenneth Clarke: Ah, here we are—somebody who supports the idea. The trouble is that if a discount is not given and the man gets to the court door and finds that there is not much coming off his sentence any more, he might as well instruct his lawyer to have a go and see whether the defence can shake the story. That is why no lawyer has ever objected to the discount for a guilty plea.

Emma Reynolds: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that there is a big difference between a 30% discount and a 50% discount. Will he turn his mind to the evidence that has been suggested by the Sentencing Council, which says that the 50% plea discount will not bring forward any more criminals to plead guilty? What does he say to that?

Kenneth Clarke: I do not agree with that. It is not evidence; there are a variety of opinions. However, it is a perfectly good question. We have got down to the fact—I can be precise—that the difference appears to be 17%. That is what we are arguing about. I do not think that anybody in this House has any principled difference whatever on the policy.
	The present system is not working effectively, so we have gone out to consultation on proposals that might improve the encouragement offered to people to plead guilty earlier. In over 10,000 cases listed, the trial stops right at the courtroom door; judge, jury, victims, police officers, probation officers are all amassed for a full trial, and then at the last minute the person pleads guilty. Those long delays are wrong, not only because of the cost to the police and the waste of time of everybody attending for any purpose connected with the trial, but because victims and serious witnesses have to endure the uncertainty of it all as they prepare for the ordeal of reliving the trauma of what are sometimes very harrowing experiences.
	I hope that the right hon. Member for Tooting will forgive me for saying that saving a bit of cost to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the public purse might be advantageous, although I know that it was not new Labour’s approach. If we could get more of those
	involved in these cases to plead guilty earlier, an awful lot of victims would feel that they have been better treated by the system.

Sadiq Khan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has enthusiastically set out the case for why he believes an increase in the discount of up to 50% should be carried through. Does the Prime Minister agree with him?

Kenneth Clarke: This was an entirely collectively agreed policy on which we went out and consulted, so the answer is yes, of course. The Prime Minister runs a scrupulously collective Government, and I am an extremely loyal Minister much used to collective Government. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has much experience of collective Government, but I commend the system to him—and to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who was of course fiercely embattled on one side in the previous Government.
	We agreed that this was a reasonable proposition on which to consult because, as I said, the system that we inherited is not achieving the benefits that the previous Government presumably thought it might achieve when they set it up.

Sadiq Khan: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for generously allowing me a second bite of the cherry. He has correctly said that the Prime Minister signed up to the consultation, which ended on 4 March this year. He talked about collective responsibility. Can he confirm that last Tuesday morning the Cabinet Committee signed off on this proposal?

Kenneth Clarke: Even in a collective Government, one does not analyse what happens in Cabinet Committees before coming to one’s final conclusions. I am not going to disclose the contents of the Cabinet Committee’s proceedings for at least 20 years. The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that we do go to Cabinet Committees, but we have not yet finished our consultation process. [ Interruption. ] He is persisting, so let me repeat what I asked earlier: how many days ago did he and the Leader of the Opposition decide that they were going to run with this? Was it by any chance connected with the slight flurry of excitement in the media at the end of last week? He and his party, and his Front-Bench team, have not had a policy on this or any other subject to do with criminal justice for the past nine months. Let him study the processes that this Government follow, and no doubt they will guide him if ever he is lucky enough to get into great office.
	The current system does not get enough early pleas and is a complete waste of resources. The police, the Crown Prosecution Service and others in the legal system use up millions of hours preparing cases that never make it beyond the door of the courtroom. That has to be changed. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has called for
	“a reorientation of our approach so that guilty plea cases can be dealt with as swiftly as possible, leaving us to devote our valuable time and resources to cases that really require them. That way we may just begin to tackle the delays that still bedevil criminal justice.”
	We are still considering the responses to our Green Paper proposals to increase the maximum discount for the very earliest pleas to one half, and to then have a
	taper, to encourage the earliest plea and disincentivise the late plea. We received many calm and reasoned responses over many months. There was no loud opposition at all to the principle of the proposal until last week. The rush for this debate is slightly pathetic and slightly comic. I do not know where it came from. I have a feeling that the Leader of the Opposition, not yet having decided what he was for, was wandering the streets looking for a passing bandwagon and prodded the right hon. Member for Tooting into putting down a motion.
	Some people are claiming that the proposal is simply to reduce the sentences available for criminals, and that is worrying some of my colleagues. As I began by emphasising, it is no part of our reforms to reduce sentences, the protection of the public or the punishment for serious crime. That is not what the Government or I are about. In response, I say very clearly that judges will continue to have discretion in setting the appropriate sentence in individual cases. I will not shorten the length of sentences available to them in any kind of criminal case. I do not think that the Opposition contest the principle, as has been emphasised. I do not understand the argument that they would be in favour of my reforms if they were not combined with saving public expenditure. That is not a compelling point. Reforms to the efficiency and effectiveness of the system are required.

Karl Turner: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I really should sit down soon.
	Let me deal with what we are trying to reform and why. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), said in the Daily Mail on Friday that I should
	“order a wholesale review of how the court system works”.
	He went on:
	“my own jury experience left me staggered by the sheer waste of time and public money resulting from the chaos in our courts.”

Chris Bryant: It is the judges.

Kenneth Clarke: After 13 years, they say it is the judges. It is actually that the system does not facilitate the disposal of cases in the best possible way in the interests of victims, the police, the taxpayer and, above all, justice itself.
	I have found quotations from the former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who unfortunately is not in his place. He is the one who placed a more onerous obligation on judges to follow the early guilty plea guideline. Perhaps he is not here because, like me, he cannot understand what on earth got into the head of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in thinking that this was a suitable subject for debate.
	I remember the right hon. Member for Tooting declaring in this House that he welcomed plans for a clear sentencing framework. In December he thought that they were
	“a perfectly sensible vision for a sentencing policy, entirely in keeping with the emphasis on punishment and reform that Labour followed in government”.—[Official Report, 7 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 171.]
	I pay tribute to him for being so helpful and constructive in response to our proposals. It is a pity that he has been bullied into picking out bits and distorting them in this debate. The principle of a more efficient system of justice is not wrong, and the principle of the early guilty plea is not wrong—I am afraid that it is the state of the Opposition that is really wrong. That is what has brought the debate to the House.
	The former Prime Minister’s old speechwriter, Phil Collins, apparently said last Friday:
	“Labour don’t have a particularly strong position on crime of any kind”.
	Well, we will help them. We have a policy, and it is very clear. We will reform the criminal justice system to focus it on punishing offenders, protecting the public and tackling the scourge of reoffending. We intend to make prisons places of hard work, not enforced idleness. We will get prisoners off drugs, and drugs out of prisons. We will toughen up the current weak and failed system of community sentences, and we will introduce a radical payment-by-results approach that will introduce innovative public and private sector solutions focused on what really matters, which is breaking the devastating cycle of crime.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. There is a six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions, but if Members can get their points across in less than six minutes, they will be helping their colleagues.

George Howarth: It is a pleasure to follow the Secretary of State, who presented a familiar face. There was a mixture of pragmatism, an element of bluster and just the occasional shaft of precision in his argument.
	I begin by making an obvious point, and I do so at the risk of sounding like Michael Howard, now Lord Howard. We often lose sight of part of the meaning of what he said on the subject. Prison does work, at least to a limited extent. It seems to me an incontestable fact that while somebody is locked up in prison, they cannot commit offences out in the community. There have been many cases in my constituency over the years in which people have been given a custodial sentence and been taken out of the community, even if only for three or six months, and there has been an appreciable difference in the crime rate. Local police inspectors and senior officers in my area, and I am sure in other areas, will attest to the fact that prison works in those circumstances.
	In my remaining time, I wish to cover two issues, the first of which is sentencing in general, which is the main subject of the debate. I approach it from the vantage point—or it might be a disadvantage point—of having sat on the Gage working group, which reported in July 2008. I will refer briefly to that report, then I want to say a word about community sentences.
	The Gage working group examined, among many other things, the causes of the increased prison population to which the Secretary of State referred. We highlighted nine points. I will not go through all of them—time forbids, and in any event the Secretary of State has already referred to them, and my right hon. Friend the
	Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has covered the same points. However, I wish to pick out one of the nine, because the Secretary of State made a great point of talking about reoffending. Point (5) in paragraph 2.2, on page 5 of the report, states that
	“re-offending including breaches of supervision, licence recall, suspended sentences and community orders”
	is one of the drivers that increase the prison population. I shall come back to that point later, but it is important to recognise that the prison population increased for reasons relating to the alternatives to prison sentences.
	This month, the new Sentencing Council, which was established from the Gage commission and subsequent legislation, produced a survey, “Attitudes to guilty plea sentence reductions”, which is germane to this point—it is included in the note produced by the House of Commons Library. I shall focus on three of the survey’s findings that have some force, the first of which is a point that the Secretary of State used to criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting. First, the survey states:
	“The public assume that the key motivation for the guilty plea sentence reduction is to reduce resources (time and money)…There is a strong sense that the drive for cost savings should not impact on a system effectively delivering justice.”
	Secondly, it states:
	“For the general public, there was weak support for higher levels of reductions beyond the current guideline range of up to 33%”.
	Thirdly, it states:
	“The public (and some victims and witnesses) do not like the idea of a universal approach to reductions”.
	There is therefore a strong disconnect between the Secretary of State’s proposals and how the public feel things need to be handled, which is a real problem. I accept that he is making a genuine attempt to address the issue—he is not one for eye-catching initiatives. However, he has not won over the public, and he certainly has not won over large numbers of his own Back Benchers, and for that—

Nigel Evans: Order.

Alan Beith: I begin by saying that the Lord Chancellor should not have used words that led people to believe that he did not treat all rapes as serious crimes. However, when I set that against his attempt to create a rational debate on criminal justice policy, I know on whose side my sympathies, in general, lie. In addition, it was a tactical mistake of the Opposition to turn that into a resignation issue, and a further demonstration that we need such a rational debate.
	Furthermore, the debate on extending the discount for early guilty pleas should not have become focused on rape, because it might be more appropriate for other crimes. I remain to be convinced that the enhanced discount will produce the full intended savings in the prison population. It is worth pursuing for some crimes and would be inappropriate for others. The current one third discount needs the careful exercise of the judge’s discretion, which is in some ways circumscribed too much, because distinctions must be drawn between
	cases in which a guilty verdict is almost inevitable, and those in which a guilty plea avoids lengthy proceedings with an uncertain outcome.
	The aim of getting guilty pleas earlier is sensible, but many court-door pleas are based on the lack of early knowledge of the prosecution case, or a belief that witnesses will be intimidated into not turning up. Greater discounts will not of themselves change that. If the policy succeeds, it will enable other cases to be brought to trial more quickly, which would be a very welcome development, even if it might not assist in making financial savings because it could lead to more custodial sentences.
	The public continue to see length of sentence as the only way of asserting society’s abhorrence of serious crimes, regardless of whether the long sentence has any deterrent effect, which it clearly does not in some cases, and regardless of whether the offender considers the sentence to be particularly punitive. Some offenders regard community punishments as more exacting than prison, which means bed and breakfast, and three meals a day. For many offenders, life outside is disorganised, dysfunctional and not particularly comfortable.
	We must ask, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary is asking, whether we are spending the vast resources that we commit to the criminal justice system in a way that is effective in reducing the crime and victimisation that result from reoffending. Resources are not unlimited, and it is our responsibility to use them to protect our constituents from becoming victims of crime. That requires a transfer of some resources from custody to community punishment, and from custody to preventing people, particularly young people, from getting involved in crime in the first place.
	If we had only ever treated the symptoms of illness and devoted minimal effort to prevention and public health, we would have made very little progress in eradicating diseases and increasing life expectancy. We must apply some of that philosophy to preventing crime and reoffending. Every crime and instance of reoffending that is not prevented makes victims of our constituents. We need a rational debate on how we organise policy so that we prevent people from becoming involved in crime and from returning to it.

Michael Ellis: Further to the right hon. Gentleman’s medical analogy, does he agree that it is highly likely that people would stop prescribing a medicine if it did not work 70% or 80% of the time?

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. What is more, we would be better to prevent people from getting the condition in the first place than to give them medicine late in the day.
	Successive reports of the Select Committee on Justice have tried to launch, support and encourage a rational debate on our criminal justice policy. That, I believe, is what the Lord Chancellor has been trying to do, and I encourage him to continue in that endeavour.

Stephen McCabe: Although I do not agree with a blanket 50% discount, I accept the sincerity of Government Ministers in trying to reform sentencing. Despite the Lord Chancellor’s denials, the
	problem is that the Treasury has set those Ministers a slightly unreasonable cost-cutting agenda, which will inevitably undermine some of their ambitions. Cost cutting simply will not give us better sentencing outcomes, and as I am sure the Lord Chancellor knows, effective community alternatives to custody are not a cheap option.
	Any review of sentencing needs to take account of the public and demonstrate that both the politicians and the experts charged with the reforms genuinely listen to and take on board the public’s concerns. In that respect, we need to start with victims and ensure that their needs are at the centre. We need to ensure that they are not forgotten or tacked on as an afterthought as courts focus too much attention on the offence and the offence tariff rather than on the impact of the crime.
	The public need to know that the money being spent makes a difference and that the justice system belongs to them and not to the professionals or the experts, or even worse, to the offenders, as it sometimes seems. If the Lord Chancellor really wants to protect victims and witnesses in the judicial process, we perhaps need to prise some elements of the justice system from those that currently hog the scene. This is not about blaming judges, but I am not convinced that the current structure of our courts and the selection of judges and—in some cases—magistrates, are the best that they could be. Their sentences frequently do not make sense to most normal people, and at times, they seem to be totally out of touch with the communities that experience most of the crime.

Karl Turner: My hon. Friend mentions victims. I have just been doing the maths on this. Someone who is convicted of the offence of causing death by careless driving while over the proscribed limit will end up with something like nine months. How is that fair to the victim?

Stephen McCabe: That is my point about focusing more on the impact of the crime.
	We need to return to the experiment with community courts for lower-level crimes. That kind of approach has public support, even if the legal establishment, which is well represented in the House, is sceptical, and many of my constituents would welcome attention being paid to these matters. Thinking about what the Lord Chancellor said, it seems to me that we need a rethink. This is not about who runs the prisons, but about how they are run. We need to establish the value of short custodial sentences. What does a 10-week sentence set out to achieve? More importantly, we need to know, as he acknowledged, why it is easier to get drugs and other contraband in prison than outside. [Interruption.] Members can say, “It’s your legacy”, but it is a legacy that has been developing for years, and if we reduce the debate to that sort of silly, cheap remark, any benefits we might derive from the time available for debate will be lost. That is why they are wasting their time with that kind of muttering.
	I want to know why this continues to happen. Why do we keep reading about prisoners taking us to court? Why can anyone in prison for more than a few months leave still unable to read and write? If the Lord Chancellor really wants to help and to demonstrate that the things
	he has spoken about today will be activated, he needs to tell us what he is going to do, and to do more than simply repeat the concerns in the Chamber.
	We need to clarify the purpose of custody. The priorities for long-term prisoners are straightforward. They should be about security and then a long path to rehabilitation. However, for the short term and the frequent offenders that he mentioned, surely we need to have more credible forms of punishment and restitution, and more imaginative sentencing. That might mean ending the divide between prison and the community. Why not have prison sentences for evenings or weekends? Why not curb leisure time? Surely what matters is that the time is used constructively, and that any activity is not confused with leisure time or voluntary activity; it has to be about punishment, control and making amends.
	The public want to see and hear punishment as well as rehabilitation. There have to be fewer opportunities for people to avoid responsibility for their actions, and courts need to entertain fewer excuses. I agree with the Lord Chancellor, but where in his policy are there clear directions and obligations in sentencing? I want to know that there will be rigorous testing, directive counselling and control for offences relating to substance abuse. If the Government were to take us along that path, rather than spending so much time repeating an analysis we all broadly share, and if they were to make clear their intentions, we might be able to have a much more constructive debate, instead of one in the terms being debated today.
	Nevertheless, we are having this debate because the Government have set out to cut prison numbers, largely on a cost-cutting basis. The Lord Chancellor has refused to give details of exactly how he is going to provide credible—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I call Philip Davies.

Philip Davies: Although I am speaking in favour of this Opposition day motion, I think it is the height of hypocrisy for the Labour party to lead the charge on crime, given that it presided over the automatic release of people halfway through their sentences, which created many unnecessary victims of crime. As we have heard from my hon. Friends today, the Labour party released 18 days early almost 80,000 prisoners who between them went on to carry out an additional 1,512 offences, including three murders, rapes and assaults, while they should have still been in prison. One convict, originally jailed for battering a woman to death, was released, only to lure a 10-year-old boy back to a flat, where he threatened to slash his throat with a craft knife before raping him. That is not what I call being tough on crime, despite what the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) would like us to believe.
	I would like to clarify that, no doubt contrary to popular opinion, as a Government Member I do not particularly enjoy voting in favour of Opposition day motions. However, the Justice Secretary’s recent proposals are simply unacceptable to the majority of my constituents and the British public as a whole.

Andrew Percy: I can assure my hon. Friend that they are also unacceptable to the people of Brigg and Goole. Is not the record of the
	previous Government which he described exactly why we entered the election promising tougher sentences, to end the early release scheme and to be more honest with the public about our plans?

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is right. It is astonishing that some of our hon. Friends, who were happy to enter the election promising to send more criminals to prison, and to put in place longer sentences and honesty in sentences, are now advocating sending fewer people to prison for a shorter time. I did not tell that to my constituents when I stood in the election.

Bob Stewart: Forgive me, I am not learned or a lawyer, but we have not suggested that fewer people would go to prison, have we? We have suggested that prison sentences could be cut by up to 50%, but that it would be for the judges to decide. It would not necessarily be 50%.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is clutching at straws. The Secretary of State made it clear that as a result of the proposal fewer people would be in prison. That is the whole purpose of the measure. My hon. Friend ought to reflect on the fact that this is an arbitrary proposal, because there is absolutely no evidence suggesting that more people will plead guilty as a result. If that does not happen, will the Secretary of State return to the House in a few months suggesting a three-quarters discount for pleading guilty in order to get a few more convictions? Where will it end? Why not scrap prison sentences altogether? This is a slippery slope. It is ludicrous and not based in evidence.
	Most people think that punishment is not heavy enough. It has been estimated that between 2007 and 2009, criminals on probation have been responsible for 121 murders and 44 cases of manslaughter, along with 103 rapes and 80 kidnappings. In total, they were responsible for more than 1,000 serious violent or sexual offences in the two years from April 2006, while almost 400 more suspects are awaiting trial. Most people looking at these figures would conclude that too few, not too many, people were being sent to prison, and most would conclude that people are not being sent to prison for long enough, not that they should be let out even earlier.
	As we have heard, a senior judge, Lord Justice Thomas, warned that as a result of these proposals, a rapist facing five years in prison could get off with a sentence halved to just 30 months by pleading guilty earlier. However, because of what the previous Government did, which the Secretary of State appears to support, that offender would then be released after only 15 months behind bars. Fifteen months for a five-year sentence! That is what is happening under a Conservative-led Government.

Kenneth Clarke: The example given by my hon. Friend is fanciful, because the average sentence for rape is eight years. Sentences will vary but in the end the judge will decide what justice and the seriousness of the offence justify. Needless public alarm is caused because the public find it difficult to know what the sentences are. If it reassures my hon. Friend, however, I can say that I would regard someone being released from the prison part of their sentence after 15 months as quite inadequate in a case of rape.

Philip Davies: The Secretary of State and I differ. He seems to think it perfectly reasonable for somebody to get eight years in prison and serve only two, but I think that it is unacceptable. [Hon. Members: “He didn’t say that.”] I am disappointed he thinks that somebody who is given an eight-year sentence should be given a 50% discount for an early plea, reducing the sentence to four years, and so be released after two. [Hon. Members: “No, he didn’t say that.”] That means two years for an eight-year sentence, which to me and most people is totally unacceptable.

Anna Soubry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Philip Davies: No, there is not time.
	That is what the Secretary of State is proposing. That is what happened to Gabrielle Browne, who sparked the debate when she questioned the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be heard. Members will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate in due course. This is quite unacceptable when he is speaking.

Philip Davies: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Gabrielle Browne was attacked by an African immigrant, Mohammed Kendeh, who had just been let out of prison four months into a one-year sentence. He had sexually assaulted five other women in the same park a year before, but was spared jail for those offences. Non-custodial sentences do not appear to work in such cases. Similarly, in a recent case in west Yorkshire a serial rapist was freed from jail early only to commit another sickening attack. He had subjected a string of women to terrifying rapes and sexual assaults as far back as 1984, but served only eight years of a 14-year sentence for raping an 18-year-old woman. Upon his release, he carried out a further rape on a 24-year-old as she left a nightclub.
	We will get more and more such cases, with people serving more and more derisory prison sentences, then let out to create more and more unnecessary victims of crime. When people with no offending history are caught for crimes and have to wait to be convicted, it is understandable that it should take time to bring them to justice. However, it is unforgivable for people in government to preside over a system that lets people out of prison earlier than necessary, in order for them to go on and commit more crimes and create more victims of crime. We need to review the current situation, in which people are released from prison early.
	People keep telling me that Scandinavian countries are marvellous when it comes to these things, so I went to Denmark to see at first hand what they did. One thing that never seems to come out is that in Denmark, people are not automatically released halfway through their sentences. They are released only if they behave well; and in fact, 30% of prisoners in Danish prisons serve their full sentences because they are not deemed safe to release from prison early. Those are the things that the Secretary of State should be looking at, not trying to have people serve lower sentences in the first place. Indeed, it is his proposals that are causing the British public to lose confidence in the British criminal justice system and in this place.
	Last week I asked the Secretary of State to read some research commissioned by Lord Ashcroft into the opinion of the public, victims of crime and police officers. Some 80% of those polled thought that sentences were too lenient. Similarly, when asked whether they expected the new coalition Government to be tougher on crime than the last Labour Government, 50% of those polled said that they expected them to be tougher, while 9% said less tough. When asked their views now that they had seen the Secretary of State in action for a year, only 13% thought that the Government were tougher, while 23% thought that they were less tough.
	These proposals have to go. I very much fear that if the Secretary of State does not listen to the widespread opposition to these plans, then for us to restore our reputation as a party of law and order, he will have to go as well.

Fiona Mactaggart: I want to talk about this Government’s record on crime where women are victims or offenders, and to show that the latest attempt to propose a 50% discount for early guilty pleas—which was offered up by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), as doing women rape victims a favour—is a desperate ploy that could only be the product of a men-only Department which, to be frank, just does not get it when it comes to women and crime.
	It is not just Ministers’ fault, however: when I was a Home Office Minister working with the National Offender Management Service, I discovered that officials believed that women offenders in prisons were basically exactly the same as men and were to be treated the same. The consequence was an appalling deluge of women self-harming and killing themselves in jail. I realised that we needed a comprehensive rethink of the issue, and helped to commission Baroness Corston to look at it. She came up with an excellent report that showed many of the ways that prisons dealt ineffectually and unfairly with women, who are more likely to be jailed for non-violent offences than men, more likely to be remanded when they are later found innocent, and very likely to have been victims of violence themselves before committing any offence.
	It seems that we are getting the same kind of cloth-eared view on how women as victims are treated. We need to approach them in the same way that Baroness Corston approached women offenders: by really looking at how to reduce future crime, by ensuring that the children of offending women are less likely to become offenders themselves, by listening to victims and those in the system, and by doing a careful study rather than what I believe we are facing, which is a back-of-the-envelope calculation—“This’ll get me off the hook with the Treasury.”
	Let us look briefly at Labour’s record, which Government Members have mentioned extensively. The most striking thing in relation to rape is the increase of sentences served between 2005 and 2009, the period for which we have the most recent figures. Sentences served increased by 14 months over that period because of determined work by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member
	for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and Baroness Scotland, who worked together to start taking unduly lenient sentences back to court and ensure that dangerous rapists were not released early. We then realised that we were not doing enough, so we commissioned Baroness Stern to look at how rape was treated in the criminal justice system. She was impressed by a number of the changes that we had made, including introducing specialist police units—which are now due to be cut by the Home Office—increasing by 15% the number of rapists convicted, improving the way cases were dealt with in court, and introducing specialist prosecutors in all 42 Crown Prosecution Service areas. Of course, the number of CPS areas has now been cut, so although every area might claim to have specialist prosecutors, I doubt whether there will be as many as there were.
	The difference between that and what we see now is carefully thinking through what will make a difference. I am genuinely shocked by the Minister, who I do not think is a bad man. I share his desire to reduce reoffending, and I recognise his point that short sentences—those under four years—are ineffectual. That is one of the reasons why I want to ensure that no rapist is in jail for less than four years. He said that there was no loud opposition to the proposal. What that means is that he has not bothered to read the representations that women’s organisations made in response to his Green Paper. I am afraid that we are seeing a cloth-eared, don’t-get-the-women approach from this Department. I want Ministers to think again. We were told that victims’ organisations would really welcome the proposal because victims would not have to go through the horror of a trial. Yes, rape trials are horrible—they are very degrading for the victim—but if the trial does not go ahead, then although the judge hears the plea in mitigation, he never hears how the victim’s life has been destroyed.

Stephen Phillips: I wonder whether the hon. Lady has actually read the Green Paper. One of the things that it addresses is the right of victims—a right that they never really had under the Government whom she supported—to give a proper impact statement on how the crime has affected them. If she cares to read the Green Paper, we will not have these silly points made.

Fiona Mactaggart: I was one of those Home Office Ministers who introduced the concept of victim impact statements, so I am well aware of that, but the problem is that with early guilty pleas, that has not usually been the case in practice. From my reading of the Green Paper it is not clear to me what will happen: will Ministers automatically ensure that the victim impact statement can fully outline what has happened to the victim?
	I do not believe therefore that what is proposed is being done to make the victim’s experience better. There is no evidence of that, because there is no evidence of careful listening to victims’ organisations, which is what I would have expected had that been the case. I would have expected real engagement with women’s organisations that deal regularly with the victims of rape and other sexual violence. According to the British crime survey, one in 250 women were victims of sexual assault in the last year. This is a widespread offence, and we are not taking it sufficiently seriously when the Secretary of
	State for Justice can say, “Well, there’s rape and then there’s rape.” We need to change the way we deal with this issue. We need to be really serious about these issues. Although there is a case for discounts for early guilty pleas, they should not be universally applied to people who have been responsible for some of the most violent and degrading crimes, and his Green Paper does not stop that—

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Helen Grant: We have about 4,000 women in British prisons. A small fraction of them need to be locked up; the vast majority do not. Most of these women are serving very short-term sentences, with 64% serving less than six months. Those serving short sentences are not subject to any supervision on release, and their prison sentences are too short to provide proper rehabilitation. The result is a vicious circle of family breakdown, chaos, reoffending and huge cost to the taxpayer.
	Women in prison are a highly vulnerable group, and they commit crime because of this vulnerability and because of earlier failures to protect and support. More than half have suffered domestic violence, and a third have suffered sexual assault. Up to 80% have mental health problems. Many of them self-harm, and many have attempted suicide. More than half have alcohol problems, and 27% have drug problems. When a woman goes to prison, her children suffer too, with homes being repossessed and children ending up in care. Some women are pregnant when they go to prison, and the sight of babies and toddlers spending their earliest moments in a situation that is the complete opposite of a family home is an affront to my senses as a mother, a family lawyer and a politician. When a man goes to prison, a woman is usually there for him when he gets out. When a woman goes to prison, the man is often nowhere to be seen.
	The Government’s plans to reform the criminal justice system set out in the Green Paper helpfully recognise that women offenders have a different profile of risk and need. I was encouraged recently by the response of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), to my parliamentary question on the effectiveness of short-term prison sentences for women. He said:
	“Short-term sentences for men have proven pretty ineffective, and I think that short-term sentences for women are even more ineffective…We support the conclusions of the Corston report…we are committed to reducing the number of women in prison, and a network of women-only community provision is being developed to support robust community sentences.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 163.]
	Those community offender projects for women, to which the Minister referred, provide a genuine alternative to custody. They are run by charities that work in partnership with the police, the prisons, the probation service and health and social services, and they provide wrap-around support for the woman. They help her to stabilise her life. They find her somewhere to live and ensure that she is safe. They start to deal with mental health and addiction problems, and they allow magistrates to sentence a woman to community penalties with confidence. Early evaluations of the projects look very good, in terms of reducing costs and the rate of reoffending. Those projects
	have been funded by the Ministry of Justice, and I hope that such funding will be continued, notwithstanding the difficult financial climate.

Philip Davies: The answer to a parliamentary question that I asked revealed that, for every age group and for every offence, women are already far less likely than men to be given to a custodial sentence. Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to stop women going to prison is for them not to commit those crimes in the first place?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but this is why we are looking at robust community alternatives to prison.
	It would be a missed opportunity if these projects were not expanded, and an absolutely travesty if they were cut. We need a strong message from the Government that prison is not the right place for women who pose no threat to the public. I accept that the public and the judges need to feel more confident about community sentences, and their scepticism must certainly be dealt with. Community sentences are not fluffy options. They are intensive interventions that absolutely challenge a woman to change her life. They will also enable her to see that her future could look very different from her past.

Jenny Chapman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) on her wonderful, thought-provoking speech. I have not heard the case for women prisoners articulated so well since I came to the House.
	There is a gaping hole at the heart of the Government’s Green Paper on sentencing: it is the voice of the victim. Rehabilitation is important to victims. They want to know that their experience has not been in vain. They are anxious to prevent other people from becoming victims, and they want to know that their ordeal—traumatic, distressing and damaging though it was—can produce a change that will help others. For that reason, victims want certainty in sentencing. Rehabilitation is often valued by victims, but punishment and reparation must come first.
	Why should victims believe that rehabilitation will work when their own experience of the criminal justice system is so lacking? The Government assure us, sometimes with the best of intentions, that rehabilitation will succeed, at the same time as proposing that sentences should be cut and fewer people should be incarcerated. Our criminal justice system involves a deal between the citizen and the state. We do not personally catch and punish others who have wronged us; we stand back and trust professionals to take care of justice on our behalf. We are entitled, however, to expect transparency in return. That is the deal.
	Rehabilitation acts both ways. We can all understand why the rehabilitation of offenders is important, but what about the rehabilitation of victims? Victims often feel that they serve a longer sentence than the perpetrator, yet they are entitled to less. There is not enough trauma care for those who are suddenly bereaved. There is inadequate counselling on offer for children, and counselling is sometimes delayed until after a trial, for fear that it might contaminate the evidence. That irresponsible and unnecessary practice must stop.

Bob Stewart: I gave evidence for the prosecution in a murder trial in 1986. In the middle of my evidence, the plea was changed. The people sitting behind me were seriously grateful that they no longer had to go into the witness box. Sometimes, victims such as those are grateful for any method that allows them to avoid having to go through their experience again in court. I make that point only because I think that it is valid.

Jenny Chapman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I accept that what he says is true. My point is that increasing the discount to 50% will not in any way improve the experience of victims.
	It is true that victims benefit from efficiency in the criminal justice system. Unnecessary and costly administration helps no one, but the attempt to make savings by cutting sentences by up to 50% in return for a guilty plea is not a fair way of going about this. Justice is at the heart of the system, and it must not become its casualty.
	I welcome the Secretary of State’s ideas in the Green Paper on work in prisons. It is important and beneficial to victims that the system should turn out people who are able to lead law-abiding lives, and I am pleased that he has suggested that wages earned by prisoners should be used to compensate victims. He needs to ensure that that happens. A fund needs to be established in which the money can be collected centrally for redistribution to victims, because they generally do not want the ongoing regular direct relationship with an offender that a monthly direct debit can entail. A centrally co-ordinated victims fund to assist with reparation would help in that regard.
	No one seems to believe that community sentences are real punishment. They are seen as second best, the soft option or the cheapest option. Sadly, that is all too often true. Community sentences should be highly visible, and that includes making the offenders themselves highly visible. The public must be responsible for nominating work schemes, and the probation service needs to see tough punishment as part of its brief. Community sentences should be tough, physical, intensive and of direct benefit to the community that has suffered. Breaches should be rigorously enforced.
	Of greatest concern, however, are the Government’s proposals to alter indeterminate sentences for public protection. No offender convicted of rape, sexual assault or child abuse should be released without an assessment of their risk to the public. The Green Paper assumes that non-dangerous IPP inmates are serving longer than they need to. I know that inmates and their families are arguing for this. Where, however, is the voice of the victim? Could it be that parole boards are making the right call in keeping us safe from some of the most predatory offenders in the system? We should let them continue to do so.
	Reduced sentences for guilty pleas have been thoroughly debated in recent days, but the Government need to find other ways to ease the experience of the criminal justice system for victims. An offender who pleads guilty late in the process should be penalised, not rewarded, for an early plea. How an offender pleads has nothing to do with the seriousness of the crime—crime should be punished, rather than the ability to play the system be rewarded. The Government’s proposals will not encourage more people to plead guilty early. Such decisions are
	based on the likely outcome and the strength of evidence, not on the discount offered. All the current proposal does is alienate victims; it is wrong.
	The Government need to make the light by which the needs of victims can be seen. So far, this is missing from their proposal. Reoffending rates improved in the last decade, but it will be a long time before rehabilitation will be good enough for it to be seen as more important in sentencing than reparation or punishment. The Government will be judged on who they prioritise in criminal justice—and this must be the victim.

Ben Gummer: I think that the Opposition Front-Bench team do their Back Benchers a great disservice; we have heard some interesting and thoughtful contributions, especially from the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). Once again, however, we have seen the Opposition Front-Bench team jumping on the bandwagon of the week. Three weeks ago it was Sure Start and the Opposition showed their commitment to that in the Opposition day debate with only four or five Members present, yet there were dozens on the Government Benches. Last week, we had the Opposition day debate on the health service, at which the car crash unfolded because Labour Members were unable to attack the proposals effectively. Now, today, we see an attack on Government proposals that were published in the autumn of last year, which had been supported in large part by the Leader of the Opposition and his Front-Bench team. Yet they have just discovered now that they find some truck with some elements of it. This shameless and shameful opportunism would be extraordinary in any other group of people, were it not for the fact that this Opposition have shown themselves to be experts in turning opportunism into a low art.
	At the end of last year, the Opposition spokesman said:
	“I am not going to say Ken Clarke is being soft on crime… because he is asking the right questions about rehabilitation rates”.
	What of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to the Labour party conference just minutes after he had been made the new leader? He said that
	“when Ken Clarke says we need to look at short sentences in prison because of high re-offending rates, I’m not going to say he’s soft on crime… This new generation must find a new way of conducting politics.”
	What a new way of conducting politics—to agree to radical and brave proposals by my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary and come here and attack them the minute the bandwagon is passing. The Opposition are so misguided because for the first time in a generation a Government have been brave enough to make difficult proposals that will help victims in the long run.

Kevan Jones: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s forthright views on opportunism. He was not a Member before the last election, but his party, including his leader, were very good at opportunism at that time. Has he tested any of these ideas on the electorate of Ipswich?

Ben Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Although there are many things on which I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who
	spoke previously, I differ on this issue. At the last election, I was very plain with people when they spoke about prison reform. The hon. Gentleman might know that I have had a long-running interest in the subject. I told people in Ipswich what I am about to explain to him now—that our current penal system does victims a disservice.
	It is not a difficult equation to understand, although I know the Opposition do not understand problems in this way. It was the same with the hospital debate. Instead of looking at how to improve cancer survival rates, they look at the structures of GP fundholding. In this instance, they look not at how to improve the experience of victims or how to bring down crime, but at how many people we are sentencing and for how long. They are looking at processes and inputs rather than results. If we turn that on its head and look at the victim rather than the criminal, as we have been asked to do, we might find a different way out.
	We want to do something for victims, of whom there are too many. We wish to cut crime. We know that the majority of crime is committed by people who have already offended once or many times previously. What do we do about it? Do we try to increase reoffending rates or do we try to reduce them? It is the experience of Members of all parties that the prison, probation and the community service system are failing on every single account to encourage rehabilitation and to cut the number of victims.

Andrew Percy: I thank my hon. Friend for his brave speech. No victim of crime in Brigg and Goole has ever written to me to say that they wished the people who had committed crimes against them had served shorter sentences. On this issue, he seems to be separating out the idea of prison from rehabilitation, but is it not possible to have both prison and rehabilitation by conducting rehabilitation in prison?

Ben Gummer: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, as he will find out if he listens a little further. I am a great proponent of tougher prison sentences, of making them longer for certain crimes and of taking away the televisions and the PlayStations in favour of making prisoners do hard work during the day, learn a skill and work towards being creative members of society on coming out of prison.
	The problem with the case of Labour Members, some of whom have made an alliance with some of the more extreme Conservative Members [Hon. Members: “Name them.”] No, they know who they are! It is an interesting alliance. [Interruption.] Just wait and they will be proposing flogging next. What Labour Members do not understand is that for short custodial sentences, we are seeing increasing rates of reoffending, which means only more victims. That is not to say that we should be putting people on pansy community sentencing; we should not, because many of those sentences do not work. Why can we not follow the example of the Germans, who have a prison population of 72,000 people in an overall population of 80 million; or of France, whose prison population is 60,000 in an overall population equivalent to our own? In both jurisdictions, crime is lower because their community rehabilitation systems are stronger, especially for short-term custodial sentences.
	We have heard from Members representing constituencies in the north-east and the north-west, where more than two thirds of court cases crack before their end either through the incompetence of the Crown Prosecution Service or because of the guilty plea being made either mid way through or at the end of the trial. None of that does anything to help victims, which is important, and on top of that it commits millions of pounds that could be spent on picking up criminals, putting them in court, convicting them and keeping them in prison if they are a danger to the public.
	Let me finish with another point about criminals. The victims commissioner, Louise Casey, said of these cracked trials that they increase “anxiety among victims” and cause great fear among witnesses at the “prospect of giving evidence”. Why cannot Opposition Members congratulate the Justice Secretary on bringing proposals to the House that will reduce anxiety among victims and help to improve the prospects of bringing people to justice rather than just jump once again on to a passing media bandwagon? I am afraid that they also show once again that in the absence of their own policy, the Opposition have nothing to offer this country—not even an apology for their grievous mistakes over the past 13 years.

Nia Griffith: We would all like to see prison population decline, but for the right reasons. We would like to see a continuation of the reduction in crime that took place when we were in government. I will not dwell on the devastating effects that the drastic cuts in the police budgets are likely to have on crime detection rates, as my hon. Friends will raise that issue in this evening’s second debate.
	We all want to see a reduction in crime and Labour Members believe that crucial factors in reducing crime include ensuring good education opportunities for all our young people; ensuring job opportunities for all; ensuring that everyone, including those on the lowest wages, have enough to live on; providing proper mental health services in a fully funded public national health service; and tackling issues such as drug and alcohol addiction.
	As was pointed out by members of the audience during last week’s “Question Time”—prison officers and prisoners alike—when people do end up in jail, it is important that proper help and support is provided to rehabilitate prisoners so that they can be reintegrated in society. However, that requires funding and space, which was one of the reasons for our plan to provide more prison places. Many electors thought that that was also the policy of the Conservative party, and they must feel badly let down, because they now understand that the Conservatives’ policy is simply to reduce sentences for violent crime. Some new prisons, such as the prison that we planned to build in north Wales, would also have enabled prisoners to remain closer to their communities, with important consequences in terms of family contact and increased chances of successful release.
	Constituents of mine are horrified by the Government’s proposals. They are horrified by the idea that sentences could be reduced by 50% in the case of all offences in the event of early guilty pleas. They are horrified by the fact that those offences would include violent crimes such as rape, and by the fact that a convicted rapist
	could serve only 15 months in jail. As the Secretary of State will know, in 2003 Labour introduced the Sentencing Guidelines Council, the forerunner of the Sentencing Council, which came into being in 2010 and is charged with promoting a clear, fair and consistent approach to sentencing. It opposes the 50% reduction, believing that an offender’s decision to plead guilty should not be allowed to reduce a sentence by more than 35%. It has also said—this is for the information of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer)—that the reduction will not increase the tendency of defendants to plead guilty.
	I am particularly concerned by the Government’s attitude to rapists and their victims. Last year they proposed anonymity for rape defendants, sending the message that such defendants needed more protection than others because their accuser was more likely to be lying. That was a disgraceful suggestion and proposal. It is hard enough for a woman to report a rape and undergo the dreadful ordeal of having to relive the experience in order to see justice done, without her being made to feel even more undermined because the defendant’s right to anonymity implies that she is lying. I am glad to report that following fierce opposition from Labour Members—led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—the proposal was dropped.
	It was even more depressing to hear the Secretary of State’s rather flippant comments about rape last week. Particularly depressing was his comment about date rape. Date rape can involve deception, betrayal of trust, and drugging someone with no regard for the harmful effects that that can have: acts undertaken deliberately to violate the victim’s body. There is nothing glamorous about that. A rape in those circumstances is still a rape, a disgusting, despicable act. The rapist deliberately places his victim in circumstances that could be life-endangering, not only carrying out the rape but possibly even thinking, at the back of his mind, that the effects—or perceived effects—of memory loss may make the victim less likely to seek help very shortly after the crime, and that the victim may have considerable difficulty in describing events or being believed. It certainly does not help for the Secretary of State to imply that that is somehow a less serious kind of rape.
	All rapes, and all violent crimes, must be taken very seriously, and their perpetrators must be punished properly. My constituents and I certainly do not want to see a 50% reduction in sentences in exchange for early guilty pleas by those who have committed violent crimes, and I sincerely hope that the Government will drop their plans as soon as possible.

Anna Soubry: I have been a Member of Parliament for a year, but I do not think that I have ever smelt such rank political hypocrisy as that which is emanating from the Opposition Benches. I practised as a criminal barrister for 16 years, just a little longer than the tenure of the last Government. During those 16 years, and particularly during my 13 years at the criminal Bar, I saw almost daily the harsh reality of their sentencing policy, a policy which led to the present chaotic state of our prisons and which neither added up nor delivered all that they claimed it would do.
	As Members may recall, Labour claimed to be tough on crime. They used to say that they were turning the key on the prison gates and bars in order to secure someone, but at the same time they could not push people out too quickly. That is why we saw the release schemes enjoyed by so many people during their time in office, and why I asked the shadow Secretary of State about overcrowding. That is the last Government’s legacy, and that is the reality of Britain’s prisons today.
	What has the policy of the last Government meant in the real world in which some of us worked before we came to this place? I had clients aged 18 and 19 who were on remand, which meant that they were innocent, and in adult prisons because there were no places for them in young offenders’ institutions. I had clients who, when I asked them whether they been to see their drug worker, said that they had been unable to arrange an appointment because of the overcrowding. I had clients—as I now have constituents—who were willing to go on courses in order to be rehabilitated and educated, and who could not obtain places on those courses. That is the legacy of the Labour party. It is an absolute disgrace, and it is even more disgraceful that they are in denial about it.

Karl Turner: Does the hon. Lady agree with the policy of reducing sentences by 50%? If so, given all her professional experience during her 16 years of practice as a barrister, how does she think it can be justified, and does she think it will work?

Anna Soubry: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions. The reply to the first is yes. Being a lawyer himself, he will know two things. First, there is a good argument that in lengthy, tedious, multi-handed fraud cases, allowing a judge to give a 50% discount will do what everyone wants and crack heads together, and that it will work. Secondly, it is dishonest of Labour Members to criticise this Government for proposing a 50% increase when the present law allows it¸ as the hon. Gentleman well knows—or, at least, should know, as he is meant to be a lawyer. At present a judge has discretion, if he or she so chooses, to allow a discount of more than 50%, depending on the circumstances of the case.
	My complaint, which I have expressed in public before, is about those who are excessively prescriptive and tie our judges’ hands. One of the big failings of the Labour party was that in all aspects of policy, it consistently failed to trust professionals: our teachers, our nurses and our doctors. It also failed to trust our judges. If we freed their hands and enabled them to decide the appropriate sentence given all the circumstances of a case, there would be greater honesty in our sentencing policy, and there would undoubtedly be better sentencing.
	There are many issues that I would have liked to discuss, but I shall mention only two more. The first relates to events that took place last week. I say this as a woman: I find it offensive when the issue of rape is turned into a women’s issue, taken up by people and used as a political football. As I have said in this place before, some victims of rape are male, and a considerable number of victims of rape are children. It is not a women’s issue, and some of the hysteria that we heard last week did no one any favours.

Fiona Mactaggart: I suspect that the hon. Lady may be partly referring to me. Yes, there are male victims of rape—although there are fewer than one in 10—and of
	course there are child victims of rape. However, the issue affects women much more than men. That is the point I was making.

Anna Soubry: I was not referring to the hon. Lady, whom I congratulate on the work that she did in enabling not just women but children to come forward and give evidence, and indeed improving sentencing. On the issue of men, she gave the statistic of 1%. I am always a bit cynical about statistics. [Hon. Members: “It was 10%.”] Forgive me: it was 10%. I strongly suspect that, because of the stigma attached to rape, many more men are raped than come forward, but let us hope we can debate that on another occasion.
	My next point highlights why many Members, certainly on the Government Benches, feel somewhat cynical when the issue of rape is raised. Can the shadow Justice Secretary explain why in this place last week the Leader of the Opposition was for the first time flanked by two women—the deputy leader of the Labour party and the shadow Home Secretary, but not the shadow Justice Secretary—when he questioned the Prime Minister about the various comments made by the Lord Chancellor? Was that a deliberate ploy? Did the Leader of the Opposition surround himself with women to make some point? I ask that question because rape is not a women’s issue; it concerns everybody, and many of us are particularly concerned about the effect it has on children.
	I am greatly in favour of the Government’s sentencing proposals. Their document on the matter is radical and brave, and I agree with the many comments made by Government Members about short sentencing.

Richard Drax: Does my hon. Friend think that the victims she has met during her career will be reassured to hear that we are proposing to cut sentences by, perhaps, a half? How will that go down with the victims my hon. Friend has met?

Anna Soubry: I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that one of the difficulties that arise in our discussions on sentencing is when we speak about issues with a lack of information and understanding. First, let me say that victims are not all the same. They come in different shapes and sizes, and with different experiences. Sometimes—although very rarely—victims want to give evidence in order to exorcise what has happened to them. I am not for one moment talking here about rape victims, but this point applies to certain other categories of victim, such as some victims of burglary. Other victims, however, are terrified about giving evidence and would do anything rather than go into the witness box. We must therefore stop taking a broad-brush approach to sentencing, victims and criminals. That is one reason why I so strongly support our proposals: they recognise that defendants and criminals must not be treated in this broad-brush way.
	I especially commend community sentences for people who have not committed the most serious offences. Tough community sentences can and do work. When faced with the prospect of another six months in custody or a tough two-year community sentence, many of my clients wanted the community sentence—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Time is up. I call Karl Turner.

Karl Turner: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I have not got as much professional experience as her; she practised as a criminal barrister for 16 years, whereas before the general election I was a pupil barrister in my local chambers in Hull. I practised as a criminal solicitor for some time prior to that, however, and I have not met or spoken to anyone from the profession in recent days who has said the policy in question is a good one. Indeed, I have spoken to Members who sit on the hon. Lady’s side of the House, including practising barristers, who have said that this policy is simply wrong.
	I have a great deal of respect for the Lord Chancellor; I think he is a very honourable man, and I am sure that the explanation for his remarks last week is that he did not choose his words very well. Indeed, to be honest, when I heard, and listened back to, his comments, I understood the point he was trying to make. The reality, however, is that some sentences that are currently on the statute book are too low. In an earlier intervention, I made a point about convictions and sentences for the offence of causing death by careless driving while over the limit—[Interruption.] I have done the maths; the hon. Member for Broxtowe might be able to correct me if she thinks she is more experienced than me. The figure for that offence is nine months. How can that possibly be fair to victims? Also, the maximum sentence for the offence of dangerous driving per se is two years’ imprisonment, but that offence often causes paralysis; it leaves people in wheelchairs, their lives ruined, yet the starting point is 12 months.
	There is no evidence that the proposed policy will encourage people to plead guilty even earlier.

Anna Soubry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Karl Turner: No, I am sorry, but there is not sufficient time.
	There is no evidence to support this proposal. I suspect that the Prime Minister will kick this bonkers idea into the long grass pretty soon. Drop it now.

Helen Goodman: Last week, the Justice Secretary showed us how out of touch he is with the women of this country, and this afternoon we have had a demonstration of how out of touch he is with communities on the issue of crime. In recent days, the Justice Secretary has said that he does not want to change sentences for serious crime, and he said that again this afternoon. He is playing word games with the public, however, because he knows perfectly well that under his proposals people could spend just one quarter of the sentence given to them by the judge in prison. The safety of our communities is too serious for us to play these word games.
	No wonder the public lose trust in the system.
	“many people feel that sentencing in Britain is dishonest and misleading.”
	The Tories said that in their manifesto, and they promised to improve transparency; another broken promise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said, they promised to redevelop the prison estate and
	increase capacity. Instead, they are cutting the prison building programme. The one manifesto promise the Justice Secretary has fulfilled is to
	“stop talking tough and meting out ever longer prison sentences”
	That promise was in the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto, of course.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)—the latter was an excellent Home Office Minister in the previous Government—have spoken of their concerns about the way the issue of rape was treated last week. That revealed that the ministerial team does not know the facts and does not know the law.
	Unfortunately, most of the 1,000 rapes that are committed every week in this country are committed by partners and ex-partners. Also, the law has changed since the Secretary of State was practising at the bar in the last century, and he should know what it now is. Consensual sex between an 18-year-old and a 15-year-old is unlawful, but it is not rape.
	The Labour Government ended cross-examination by assailants, and they ended questioning on people’s sexual pasts. The way to win the confidence of women in this country is not to cut the sentence for people convicted of rape; rather, it is to keep the specialist police, maintain local authority support for sexual assault referral centres, and listen to the groups and lawyers working with victims. The Ministry of Justice needs a woman in the team, and the Prime Minister should find one PDQ.
	Many Members have spoken about the legacy that was left for the current Government. Government Members should remember that Labour cut crime by 43%, and cut reoffending by 15%. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) pointed out, the Labour Government understood the role that prison plays, which is why we increased the number of places by 26,000.
	Everyone wants to cut reoffending and tackle the underlying problems, and the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) made an excellent speech on the issues faced by women offenders. The points she made highlight why we followed the recommendations in the Corston report and the Bradley report on prisoners with mental health problems, and why we invested £170 million in literacy and numeracy skills, and set up new workshops in prison.
	Early guilty pleas can speed up trials and reduce the pressure on victims, but the real reason why the Government are going ahead is to save money, as the Secretary of State made clear. The Government’s own estimate is that a discount of up to 50% would reduce the number of prison places by 3,500 and save £130 million. The proposal in the Green Paper appears not in the section on victims, but under the heading
	“Efficient, effective use of the courts.”
	That is the real motivation. Of course cutting the deficit matters, but it is not the only thing that matters, and it is not possible to put a price on justice.
	What is so radically wrong with the Government’s proposal to introduce a 50% discount for early guilty pleas is that it undermines the justice of the sentence
	that is finally served. Many criminals who would have pleaded guilty early anyway will benefit. Can the Minister tell us how many thousands of prisoners fall into that category? The Ministry of Justice estimates in its impact assessment that the average discount will rise from 25% to 34%, and that is totally unjustified.
	As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Justice, Ministers have produced no evidence to suggest that the proposal will affect the number of people pleading guilty early. Indeed, the Sentencing Council will say that the strength of prosecuting evidence is the crucial factor, and the Council of Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges feels that many offenders are
	“irrational or dysfunctional and will not face up to the realities until the last possible moment.”
	As the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) pointed out, short sentences are known to be ineffective—that is obviously why the Ministry of Justice wants to increase the number of people on them. Another problem with the proposal is that the reduction is formulaic, so those who have committed the worst offences get the biggest cuts in prison terms—that is simply not fair. This proposal will apply to terrorists and last week Lord Carlile said:
	“The release of every prisoner convicted of a terrorist offence has a national security implication and the sooner they are released the greater the national security implication.”
	The overwhelming problem is that the punishment will not fit the crime. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) pointed out that victims will feel let down and the public’s confidence will be shattered.

Claire Perry: The hon. Lady speaks with her usual passion on this subject, but did she speak with this passion when the previous Government introduced a 33% discount for an early guilty plea?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Lady should have listened to the debate; we have gone through that argument already.
	I want to move on to the important issue of the Secretary of State’s “rehabilitation revolution”. That is what he has promised, but the cuts programme he has agreed—23% over four years, with a loss of 10,000 prison and probation staff—will make it impossible. He says that he wants to increase the number of hours that prisoners work from 22 to 40, but his own impact assessment says that that will need more up-front capital and ongoing staff costs to supervise prisoners for longer. He has already cut £170 million from prisons, which means that prisoners will be locked up in their cells for longer. We are already seeing cuts to education and restorative justice work with offenders.
	He says that he wants more community sentences, but effective community supervision is impossible with the huge cuts to the probation trusts. As the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, we need to reinvest in community supervision, but this year Nottingham’s probation trust faces a cut of 7%, and the trusts of Norfolk and Suffolk, Devon and Cornwall, and West Yorkshire face cuts of 7.2%, 7.8% and a staggering 9.8% respectively.
	The strategy is just not credible; nor are the Ministers. The year began with the prisons Minister standing in front of a burning prison as the third riot of his tenure took place. Last week, he said that “a moment’s reflection” would make it clear that giving half off a sentence would help to protect the public. He has now had a week’s reflection and we see from the Order Paper that the Government are stubbornly sticking to their policy. So I urge all hon. Members to reject the amendment and vote for the Opposition motion.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful for the chance to have a few minutes to reply to the debate and to present a set of arguments to explain why the Opposition motion is a good example of how not to debate or approach public policy in this area. It was my answer to a question here last Tuesday from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) that led to the debate last week and, as that has developed and as we have heard this afternoon, there is a growing appreciation and understanding that the simplicity of the Opposition motion cannot do justice to the complexity of the issues and factors we must reconcile. The motion is outside any proper context and is premature, prejudging proper consideration of our policies as a whole. It is also rather instructive that it has come forward after a prompt from media coverage and the right hon. Gentleman. I would have thought that our policy inheritance from the previous Government would have given today’s Opposition Front-Bench team pause for thought before they tabled the motion.
	A real reason for regret is that the Opposition motion indicates that a window might be closing on a unique opportunity for Parliament to show collective leadership in a difficult, complex area that is wide open to misrepresentation. We might be missing an opportunity to engage in a responsible debate and support a process in which policy is agreed on the basis of the evidence for its enduring benefit, not designed to deliver maximum short-term appeal, with evidence arranged to suit. Such support requires an exercise of principle and restraint from all of us.

George Howarth: rose —

Crispin Blunt: I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman but in order to reply to those who have contributed to this debate, himself included, I will not be able to take interventions if I am to do justice to the speeches that have been made.
	Last year, when the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) distinguished his leadership campaign, so successfully managed by the shadow Justice Secretary, by taking a sensible position on criminal justice, moving away from the populist approach of the previous 13 years, it was greeted with enormous relief by many Labour supporters with a deep and continuing interest in criminal justice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) reminded us, the right hon. Gentleman reiterated the position at his party conference speech immediately after his election as leader. So I hope sincerely that we can sustain a level of examination of these issues in this House that we can be proud of in the years to come and not just regret a unique period when we had a great chance of delivering a more effective criminal justice policy of some durability
	but bottled it. Happily, a number of speakers did actually make a constructive contribution this evening.

Karl Turner: rose —

Crispin Blunt: As I have explained, if the hon. Gentleman wants me to reply to his remarks, I am not going to be able to give way.
	The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said that we did not know the facts, but I wish to use this occasion to correct one or two mistakes of the shadow Justice Secretary. First, sentences of imprisonment for public protection—IPPs—are not automatic for rape sentences. He was also not wholly accurate on the release conditions for all those 80,000 people released 18 days early; the process was automatic to a set of criteria and no individual risk assessment was carried out. The hon. Lady also referred to the cuts to the probation trusts, but they are Labour cuts; they are the plans that the probation trusts were putting in place and they were in place under the previous Administration with the establishment of the probation trusts in the first place.
	The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) complimented the style of the Secretary of State and I am grateful for that. He also drew attention to public attitudes in this area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who chairs the Justice Committee, made it clear that the aims of our policy were sensible, and I am grateful for that support. He raised perfectly proper questions about the detail of our proposals, and they will have to be properly addressed when our proposals are brought forward.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) made a good contribution, accepting our sincerity, and I wish to compliment him on his. He agreed with the Lord Chancellor on wanting to see how this policy will be deployed in detail, but his contribution would have been more credible if he had been waiting for the policy to be considered in detail and not just supported the motion.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is, of course, wholly consistent in his position and I compliment him on that. I continue to be grateful to him for his attention to detail in this area and for putting us to a proper test of the evidence. He very properly raised issues about the effects of incarceration that must be addressed and we must consider the evidence from around the world. I have engaged with him on this issue and will continue to do so.
	The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was just a little ungracious about our women offender policy. She was at the debate the other week, which was answered for me by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) while I was visiting Wakefield prison, and she was at the reception for the Corston independent funders’ coalition at which I made it clear that we were continuing the policy that she and other Ministers had begun. Indeed, we have been complimented and congratulated by lobby groups in that area and I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) in that regard, too.
	I am afraid that the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) totally misrepresented the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) made a powerful contribution with strong words about the consequences of the sentencing policy we inherited. I appreciate her authoritative and strong support for the Green Paper proposals.
	When we return after the Whitsun recess, the Government will present our response to the consultation on our proposals in “Breaking the Cycle” and at the same time we will publish our proposed legislation on legal aid and sentencing. We need to remember what we are trying to achieve by reinforcing our proposals for effective punishment and rehabilitation through our proposed legislative changes. The comprehensive package delivers appropriate punishment, which can carry confidence, of offenders in prison and the community. It sits with the delivery of public protection today through imprisonment and in the community through curfews, tagging, oversight and reporting requirements and with the delivery of public protection tomorrow through breaking the cycle of crime for today’s offenders with effective rehabilitation and early intervention to help prevent people from becoming offenders in the first place, getting proper restoration for victims from offenders and supporting victims and witnesses through the justice process. An important element of that involves obtaining more and earlier guilty pleas.
	The merits of an early guilty plea are substantial and bring a number of discrete benefits. The first is early relief for the victim as the ordeal of the crime and of reporting it will not be compounded by months of waiting to give evidence with all the attendant anxiety. Secondly, taking some of the pressure off victims and witnesses will enable us to bring more offenders to justice. Thirdly, the police can make savings in investigatory time and effort and the Crown Prosecution Service can save considerable process time. Fourthly, the offender will possibly make considered reparation to the victim, perhaps through a restorative justice process that can deliver a measure of real accountability to the victim as well as to society. Fifthly, there will be earlier identification and engagement with appropriate rehabilitation to address the underlying causes of offending behaviour. Sixthly, of course, the administration of justice is an expensive obligation for the taxpayer and the state and if offenders co-operate with that process from the earliest opportunity, the taxpayer is saved expense, which must be welcome in this financial climate.
	What we do here is for the future, and I have not seen it better expressed than it was last week by a student, Felix Danczak, writing in Cambridge university’s Varsity newspaper:
	“Debate drives society—it is only through engaging with issues that we progress, gain new understanding and recognise nuance. Vilifying Mr Clarke, without a prior critical engagement with the issues at stake, is to leave us at the mercy of a polity driven only by the fear of scandal, unwilling to make substantive changes lest their rolling heads be paraded above the fold. If we want change, if we want positive development in society, we too need to recognise the importance of complexity.”
	We have a duty to that generation that we will abrogate if we do not rise to the challenge of the complexity of
	policy in this area. The motion does not do that and if the Opposition insist on pressing it to a Division, I must ask the House to resist it.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 221, Noes 303.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	Question agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House deplores the previous Government’s failure to tackle the national scandal of reoffending and its mismanagement of the justice system; notes that discounts for guilty pleas have been an established principle of common law for decades, and that they can speed up justice and spare victims and witnesses the ordeal of waiting and preparing to give evidence at trial; and welcomes the Government’s intention to overhaul sentencing to deliver more effective punishment for offenders and increased reparation for victims and to reform offenders to cut crime.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Would Members leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly, please, so that we can start the next debate? [Interruption.] Private conversations are good, but preferably outside the Chamber.

Policing and Crime

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move,
	That this House opposes the Government’s cuts leading to over 12,000 fewer police officers across England and Wales; believes that the 20 per cent. cut to central Government funding to the police goes far beyond the assessment of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary of efficiency savings that are possible without affecting frontline services; calls on the Government to withdraw plans for American-style police and crime commissioners for which there will be no checks or balances; and believes that the Government is making it harder for the police to cut crime by weakening the National DNA Database, leading to the loss of 1,000 criminal matches per year; ending anti-social behaviour orders, increasing bureaucracy on CCTV, creating serious loopholes in child protection and failing to develop any cross-Governmental strategy to cut crime.
	This is our fourth debate on policing and crime on the Floor of the House in the past four months. Time and again we have warned the Home Secretary that she is stirring up a perfect storm on crime. Time and again we have warned the Prime Minister that he is making the wrong decisions on law and order, and they are still not listening. The Home Secretary is not listening to the warning words from chief constables across the country. She is not listening to the cries from communities such as All Saints in Wolverhampton, where hundreds of people have signed a petition to keep their local bobby on the beat. She is not listening to the public telling pollsters and researchers that they do not trust her party on crime. As she showed at the police conference last week, she also is not listening to the silence.
	The storm we warned of is building. Cuts to police officer numbers are being felt. Front-line services that the Home Secretary promised to protect are being hit. There are cuts to youth services and family intervention projects that were helping to bring crime down. There is higher youth unemployment and poverty is rising. There are cuts to the powers that the police and courts need, and chaos in her policing reforms. American-style police and crime commissioners were rejected by the House of Lords for putting centuries of impartial British policing at risk.

Tobias Ellwood: The right hon. Lady speaks of the Government not listening. Will she now listen to the Justice Department, whose statistics show that antisocial behaviour orders do not work? They are seen as a badge of honour, and three quarters of ASBOs are breached. Were Labour to come back into power, would she retract Labour’s claims?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman’s concern about antisocial behaviour would be rather more convincing if he were criticising the cut of 250 officers and staff in his area. Antisocial behaviour orders are not right in every situation, but he obviously has not talked to police officers such as those I have spoken to in Wakefield or the community residents I have spoken to in Blackpool, who would tell him of case after case where antisocial behaviour orders have worked, have made a difference and are fighting antisocial behaviour in their communities. They are appalled at the Government’s decision.

Paul Maynard: When the shadow Home Secretary was in Blackpool, did she join in welcoming the decision by the Lancashire constabulary to increase community policing in Blackpool, as it recently announced?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman knows that while every chief constable across the country is trying to do everything they can to get as many police as possible out into neighbourhoods, the Lancashire constabulary is already being hit by cuts to front-line policing. The chief constable has raised his concerns about the cuts to front-line policing, including hundreds of officers and staff in his area.

Paul Maynard: rose —

Stewart Jackson: rose —

Yvette Cooper: I am delighted to give way to another hon. Member on the Government Benches, but their points would be more credible if they would tell us that they would put the cuts to police officers in their constituencies on their leaflets at the next election.

Stewart Jackson: I am grateful for the campaigning advice from the right hon. Lady. Does she think one would have to be cynical to be perplexed by the fact that before the general election, her right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was not prepared under any circumstances to name the percentage decrease in the budget for the police, but since the general election he just happens to agree with Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary on a 12% figure? Is that cynical, or does it reflect the fact that the Labour party has no policy on cuts in the police service?

Yvette Cooper: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman’s facts are wrong. In fact, the former Home Secretary set out in November, before the election, areas where he believed reductions in the budget for the police could be made, which would come from efficiency savings. That is why he backed a 12% reduction, which was supported by HMIC, not a 20% reduction, which is hitting thousands and thousands of police officers across the country and putting front-line services at risk right across the country. Senior police chiefs are deeply troubled by chaotic changes to national policing, and police morale is at rock bottom. Members on the Government Benches are deeply out of touch if they think their constituents want to see 12,000 police officers across the country go.

Claire Perry: The right hon. Lady references the former Home Secretary’s comments about policing. He also said that officer numbers would fall under the spending programme proposed by Labour. The shadow Chancellor said that there would be reductions in non-uniformed police staff. What cuts and what staff numbers would she envisage under Labour’s deficit reduction plans?

Yvette Cooper: We have been here before. We have had this debate before. There is a clear difference between our plans and the Government’s. We said yes, there would be reductions—[Interruption.]—and that that would mean being able to maintain the number of police officers and police community support officers across the country and being able to maintain, as HMIC said, front-line services across the country. [Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. It is one thing to make an intervention; it is quite another for Members to carry on shouting once an hon. Member has resumed her seat. There will be plenty of opportunity for Members to take part in the debate if we can make progress.

Yvette Cooper: The noise on the Government Benches conveys Members’ desperation about the cuts being made to police officer numbers in their constituencies right across the country. The difference is that we said yes, cuts of about £1 billion would need to be made over the course of the Parliament; their Front-Bench team is making cuts of £2 billion, with the steepest cuts in the first few years. That is why we are seeing 12,000 officers go and front-line services being hit.
	The storm will not go away. It will keep building. The Prime Minister may think he can make it go away by finally making a speech on crime in the next few weeks—his first since the Government began—just to show that he is taking the grip that he clearly thinks the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary lack. But it is too late for tough rhetoric, because communities across the country are already facing a tough reality—12,000 police officers to go.
	How can the Government have got so out of touch on law on order? Many people have claimed that the Prime Minister just doesn’t get it—that he is out of touch and does not understand the fear of crime in communities across the country. It is true that crime is lower in Witney than in Wakefield, but one would have thought that the Prime Minister had plenty of experience of antisocial behaviour in his street. Surely the Defence Secretary must be the first candidate for an ASBO after throwing brickbats at the International Development Secretary and the Chancellor. The Business Secretary may need an injunction for throwing brickbats at himself.
	The Justice Secretary has clearly been causing carnage wandering unmonitored through the TV studios. The Prime Minister should tag him at least, although Downing street probably thinks he is rather better locked up. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should serve a community sentence, replanting trees, and the Deputy Prime Minister is clearly regarded now as a nuisance neighbour. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is the only one the Government can count on to be supportive—he is only person rather pleased to see the cuts to the traffic cops. The entire Cabinet is in desperate need of a family intervention project. What a shame the Government have cut those!
	Time and again we have warned in the House of the serious consequences of cutting 12,000 officers. Let us look at the evidence: domestic violence units cut in Hampshire, officers in sexual offences teams forced out in London, traffic cops cut in Manchester, fire arms officers cut in Nottingham, CCTV officers cut in Merseyside, neighbourhood police cut in Birmingham and—get this—in Kent the police have told us that surveillance officers have been called off their targets after six-hour shifts because of overtime cuts. I presume that as part of the big society the Home Secretary has kindly asked criminals to keep their misdemeanours to office hours.

Angie Bray: Will the right hon. Lady at least turn her attention to London, where the Conservative Mayor, Boris Johnson,
	through judicious management of his finances, is on course to increase the number of police officers by 1,000 by next year?

Yvette Cooper: Judicious only until the mayoral election, after which the number will be cut. The Mayor has realised, as Government Members everywhere else in the country seem not to have done, that the public do not like police cuts, so of course he is pretending to put the numbers up, having seen them fall already since the election.
	Government Members tell us that all these problems will be solved by cutting bureaucracy, but even the Home Secretary’s most optimistic claims are to save the equivalent of 1,200 police officers in several years’ time. Unfortunately, she is cutting 12,000 officers now. As for the A19s, you couldn’t make it up, with up to 2,000 experienced officers being forced to take early retirement. Chief constables are being put in an impossible position, forced to use A19s to make the savings that their forces need. However, now we see, with the calculations from the House of Commons Library, that when we take into account the lost tax and pension contributions that those police officers and police authorities were making, forcing those officers to retire early will actually cost the taxpayer more. Tens of millions of pounds spent and thousands fewer experienced officers on the beat—how on earth does that fight crime?

Michael Ellis: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can answer that question.

Michael Ellis: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is being generous in giving way. Will she accept that Labour would be cutting £7 for every £8 cut under the Government’s proposals, that it is completely unacceptable for the police, as Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has reported, to have only 11% of police officers on duty and available to the public at any one time, and that by cutting bureaucracy more police can be put on the streets, rather than filling in forms in the police stations?

Yvette Cooper: It is right to keep working hard to cut bureaucracy, but the hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the reality of what is happening across the country. In west Yorkshire, for example, the police are now having to go back to their offices between incidents to deal with the bureaucracy themselves because of the scale of the cuts, whereas previously they could ring in with the details of an offence or incident that they had attended. In the west midlands and Warwickshire, time and again police officers are having to do more paperwork and bureaucracy because of the scale of the Government’s cuts.
	It is not just the cuts that are causing the problems: the Government are also making it harder for the police and communities to fight crime. As a result of the DNA restrictions, the police estimate that there are 1,000 fewer criminal matches every year, including for serious offenders. It means not holding DNA at all in up to three quarters of rape cases, where charges are ultimately not brought, and we know the difficulties in rape cases.
	On CCTV, the new code of practice means a bubble wrap of bureaucracy, with more checks and balances on a single camera than the Government are introducing for police and crime commissioners, yet the Home Secretary knows the benefits that CCTV can bring. They have just installed CCTV at Twyford train station in her constituency. Did she complain then that they had not done an impact assessment on the environment, privacy or disproportionality or introduce safeguards, as her code of practice required? No. She congratulated the station manager, saying that people needed the
	“added reassurance that they can travel in safety”.
	Too right they do, and they do not want too much bureaucracy to prevent them from getting the reassurance they need.

Mark Tami: Before my right hon. Friend moves on from CCTV, I wonder how many Members of this House have had constituents come to them demanding that CCTV be removed? I am sure that every Member has had large numbers of people come to them asking for more CCTV, rather than less.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. CCTV can make a difference for communities that are struggling, such as the community in Blackpool that I talked with a few weeks ago, who told me about the difference that having CCTV installed has made on their estate, where they had had persistent problems. CCTV was helping them to turn it around.

Philip Davies: The right hon. Lady may have heard the Justice Secretary say in the previous debate how important it was from the Government’s perspective to prevent people from having to be witnesses and give evidence in court and how distressing that was. Does she therefore agree with me, and I presume with the Justice Secretary, and recognise the role that DNA and CCTV play in preventing witnesses and victims having to go through the trauma of giving evidence?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I know that he has spent considerable time looking at the issue of DNA. When the police analysed the offences in 2008-09—just one year’s worth of offences—they found that there were 79 matches for very serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter and rape, which they would not have got had it not been for the DNA database. The concern is about not holding DNA for people who are not charged, even though they might have been suspected of a very serious offence and where the reason for not charging may not be that they are now thought to be innocent, but simply that there are difficulties, as, perhaps in a rape case—we know it is sometimes difficult to take such a case through the criminal justice system.
	The Government are out of touch with their plans to end antisocial behaviour orders. The Home Secretary has said that she wants to end ASBOs because she is worried that they are being breached, but what is her answer? Her answer is to replace them with a much weaker injunction, with greater delays, which offenders can breach as many times as they like. She is removing the criminal enforcement for serious breaches of ASBOs and removing interim ASBOs altogether, making it much harder for communities, police and local authorities
	to get urgent action when serious cases arise. No matter how many times an offender breaches the new crime prevention injunctions or ignores the warnings of the police, they will still not get a criminal penalty. They are not so much a badge of honour as a novelty wrist band. How does that help communities that want to see antisocial behaviour brought down?
	The area that I worry about most is child protection. The Home Secretary has now been advised that there are serious loopholes in her plans—by the Children’s Commissioner, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Children’s Society, Action for Children, the Scout Association, the Football Association, the Lawn Tennis Association and countless other national sporting bodies. Her plans still mean that someone could be barred from working with children and yet still get part-time or voluntary work in a school or children’s sports club and the organisation would not even be told that they had been barred. She really must stop and think again on this or she will be putting children at risk.
	Time and again the Home Secretary is undermining the powers of the police and the authorities to fight crime. Time and again she is telling them to fight with one hand behind their backs. Worrying signs are already emerging. In Yorkshire, the police are saying that their figures show that crime has gone up this year. In the west midlands it is the same. Over the 13 years of the Labour Government, crime fell by 40%. The risk of being a victim of crime is now at its lowest since the British crime survey began and there is rising confidence in the police, but people want crime to keep falling. She is putting that at risk.

Andrew Bridgen: The right hon. Lady has confirmed that she agrees with the independent inspectorate of constabulary that £1 billion-worth of savings can be made to the police without affecting front-line services. Could she share with the House what challenges she made to the Home Office budget when she was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2008-09 to remove this inefficiency?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will find that the Home Office made efficiency savings every year, and we can always rely on Chief Secretaries continually to press for them. Before the election, the then Home Secretary set out in the 2009 pre-Budget report, the 2010 Budget and in the policing White Paper a series of areas where, yes, savings could be made. It is right to make savings, but it is also right to ensure that we give the police enough resources to fight crime and to protect the public in their areas.
	The Government tell us that they have no choice. That is rubbish. They have made a choice to put the Tory party’s political timetable for deficit reduction ahead of keeping the public safe. They have made a choice to roll back police officers, because they do not believe in public sector action. They are hitting jobs in the economy, but they are hitting law and order, too.
	This policy is driven by ideology, not by necessity. The Government are fighting the police rather than fighting crime, and they are making life easier for offenders and harder for victims of crime. They have turned their backs on communities, they are out of touch on crime and justice, and communities throughout the country will pay the price.

Theresa May: The Opposition’s motion is wrong in every point of fact and wrong on every point of policy. Given that they seem to have so little knowledge or understanding of policing and crime, let me deal with each of their points in turn.
	First, the motion says that the Government are cutting 12,000 police officers throughout England and Wales. Of course, that is not Government policy. Decisions on the size and make-up of the police work force are a matter entirely for chief constables to take locally in conjunction with their police authority and, from May 2012, with their police and crime commissioner.

David Anderson: Can the right hon. Lady say exactly how much money is being cut from budgets that are going to police authorities?

Theresa May: I think the hon. Gentleman asks me how much money is being cut from budgets to police authorities. The average cut this year in real terms from central Government funding for police is 5.5%, but each police force area raises funds through the precept.
	I heard the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, complain when I made the point that decisions on police numbers are a matter for chief constables, yet in an interview with the New Statesman on 11 January she said that
	“decisions will be taken and that is always going to be a matter for chief constables.”
	So, she agrees that such decisions are taken by the police authority and the chief constable together.
	Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary says in its most recent report that the size of the work force gives no indication whatever of the quality of service a force provides to its community, and that is because of all those officers who are sat behind desks, filling in forms and giving no benefit to the public. What matters is the visibility and availability of officers and the effective use of resources, and many forces are increasing availability.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) made the point about the increased number of police officers under the Mayor of London, an elected individual responsible for policing in London. In Gloucestershire, the police force has put 15% more sergeants and constables into visible policing roles while reducing overall numbers, and by doing that in Gloucestershire it is increasing the number of police officers on the beat from 563 to 651.

Mark Tami: What does the right hon. Lady think she is doing to the morale of those people who work in the back office when she constantly decries the work that they do?

Theresa May: There are a number of roles in policing, and we have been absolutely clear about that, but we are absolutely clear also that some of those people working in police force back offices have to spend significant amounts of time filling in paperwork—imposed by the previous Labour Government—which is taking up valuable time and effort. I shall deal with that issue further in a few minutes.
	In London, alongside the new recruitment of police officers in the Metropolitan police area, the Met is also getting more officers to patrol alone, rather than in pairs, and better matching resources to demand, thereby increasing officer availability to the public by 25%.
	Given that the Opposition are getting their facts wrong, let us look at the real facts.

Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Lady agree that, on reflection, increasing the cuts from Labour’s proposed 12% to 20% is a false economy? It will critically impact on the number of front-line officers, and the cost of increased crime will be much greater than the savings to police forces, so should not she go back to the drawing board?

Theresa May: No. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument at all, and in a few minutes I will address exactly that point about funding.
	Let us look at the facts. Our police forces understood perfectly well that they would have had to make reductions in staff numbers no matter which party was in power. The Home Affairs Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), found that almost all police forces were predicting future staff losses by January 2010—months before the election. In fact, 21 police forces—almost half of all police forces—saw falling officer numbers in the five years up to March 2010, when we had a Labour Government.
	Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said, when Labour’s last Home Secretary was asked during the election campaign whether he could guarantee that police numbers would not fall under Labour, he answered no. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) understood that he could not guarantee police numbers, so why is the right hon. Lady not so straight with the public?

Mark Tami: If, as the right hon. Lady says, every party knew about the issue before the previous election, why did the Liberal Democrats promise 3,000 extra police?

Theresa May: I suggest that, instead of trying to look across to Government Members, the hon. Gentleman asks his Front Benchers why they got this country into such a financial mess that we have had to be elected as a coalition Government to clear it up: two parties, working together to clear up the mess left by one.
	The Opposition’s mistake on the first point in their motion is linked to their mistake on the second point. They are simply wrong to suggest that the cuts that the Government are having to make that go further—cuts, let me remind them again, as I just have, that we are having to make because of the disastrous economic position that they left us in—

Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Theresa May: If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will find that I am about to come on to the point that he made in his first intervention.

Andrew Bridgen: There is a police station earmarked for closure in my constituency that is completely inefficient and unsuitable for modern policing. Local alternatives are cheaper and provide more community access, but is
	it not a sad indictment that such inefficient buildings are still being used, and is it not better to cut inefficient buildings rather than front-line policing?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and the sadness of the Opposition’s position is that they would not be making such very important decisions that can lead to a better and improved service to the public. I commend my hon. Friend’s local force for being willing to make such decisions.
	I said that I would respond to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on the difference between the 12% cuts, which HMIC suggested could be made, and the Government’s cuts. He and other Opposition Members who have raised the point in the past, including the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, have obviously neither read nor understood the HMIC report, so let me tell them what it said.
	HMIC found that more than £1.15 billion per year—12% of national police funding—could be saved if only the least efficient police forces brought themselves up to the average level of efficiency. Well, the state of the public finances that Labour left us is such that all forces must raise themselves up to the level not of the average but of the most efficient forces. That could add another £350 million of savings to those calculated in HMIC’s report. But HMIC did not consider all areas of police spending. It did not consider IT or procurement, for example, and it makes absolutely no sense for the police to procure things in 43 different ways, and it makes absolutely no sense to have 2,000 different IT systems throughout the 43 forces, as they currently do.
	With a national joined-up approach, better contracts, more joint purchasing, a smaller number of different IT systems and greater private sector involvement, we can save hundreds of millions of pounds—over and above the savings identified by HMIC.
	Likewise, HMIC did not consider pay, because that was outside its remit, but in an organisation such as the police, where £11 billion—80% of total revenue spending—goes on pay, there is no question but that pay restraint and pay reform must form part of the package. That is why we believe, subject to any recommendations from the Police Negotiating Board, that there should be a two-year pay freeze in policing, just as there has been across the public sector. That would save at least £350 million—again, on top of HMIC’s savings.

Charles Walker: I know that being in opposition is difficult, but I really hope we were not as bad as that lot over there during our time in opposition.
	Would it not be possible to have a royal commission on police terms and conditions? The police do a wonderful job, and we need to maintain high morale and ensure that they do not bear a disproportionate burden of the cuts that we have to make as a result of the financial mismanagement of the Labour Government.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the behaviour of the Opposition today.
	On the proposal about the royal commission, the cuts we have to make and the timetable within which we have to make them means that we have to make decisions now. However, we are not just making those decisions
	as a Government. I set up the independent review into police pay, terms and conditions under Tom Winsor, who has produced his first report. The proposals from that report are now going through the Police Negotiating Board, and decisions will be taken by the Government once those proper processes have been gone through. At the beginning of next year, he will report on the second part of his review. I felt that it was important for the police that we ensured that an independent reviewer looked at these issues who could fully take into account the impact of all the changes.
	I remind any hon. Members who are considering the royal commission proposal that in its report last summer HMIC said, in very stark terms, that there is no time for a royal commission because of the nature of the decisions that have to be taken and the speed at which they have to be taken.

Angela Smith: The police represent the best of public services. They work tirelessly, they sign up to no-strike agreements, and they cancel leave at a moment’s notice to deal with murder or any violent crime. Do they not deserve, therefore, to be given a royal commission on pay and conditions and not to be treated as another victim of Government cuts?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady is right. We have the best police force in the world and the best model of policing in the world. I believe that the British model of policing is one that we should welcome, support and applaud. However, if she thinks that there is time for a royal commission, she should consider why, as a member of the Labour party, she allowed it, when in government, to get the finances of this country into such a state that we need to take the action that we do. [ Interruption. ] It is all very well for Opposition Members to say, “Oh no, we don’t want to hear it again”, but if the hon. Lady’s party were in government today, it would be cutting £7 for every £8 we are cutting this year.

Gavin Barwell: Last Thursday, PC Nigel Albuery was stabbed on duty on the streets of Croydon. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to look at the issue of police terms and conditions, but does she agree that we should consider the results of the Winsor review in the light of the dangers that police officers such as PC Albuery face day to day and the debt of gratitude we owe to them?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we will indeed do that. I take this opportunity to commend PC Albuery, who suffered terrible injuries, as result of which he is in a serious condition. He was doing the job that he signed up to do, which is protecting the public and dealing with criminals. I pay tribute to him and to all the other officers who, day in and day out, go out to deal with instances and incidents that take place not knowing whether they will be subject to the sort of attack to which PC Albuery was subject.

David Anderson: Raoul Moat began his killing spree in my constituency, a mile from my house. Twenty-four hours later, he damaged PC David Rathband to the extent that that man will never see again. Last week, at the Police Federation, he asked the Home Secretary, “Do you think I’m paid too much?”, to which she replied, “I’m not saying to any individual officer that your pay is wrong.” Just what is she saying to all police officers?

Theresa May: I am saying to all police officers that we value the work that they are doing, though it is important that we look at their pay terms and conditions, which have not been changed significantly for some time. We need to ensure that we have a modern, flexible work force in the police who can take us forward in the policing that we need today in the 21st century. That is why I thought it important to set up an independent review. We will look at the results of the proper processes that that independent review report is going through with the Police Negotiating Board.
	I have set out a number of areas in which it is possible to make savings over and above those identified in the HMIC report in areas, such as increasing efficiency, IT, procurement, and a pay freeze. Together, these savings amount to £2.2 billion a year—more than the £2.1 billion real-terms reduction in central Government funding to the police. Even that ignores the local precept contribution from council tax payers, which independent forecasts suggest will rise by £382 million, or 12%, over the comprehensive spending review period.

Yvette Cooper: If the Home Secretary is so confident in her savings figures, why does she think that chief constables from across the country, including in Lancashire, South Yorkshire, Kent and Norfolk, are all saying that front-line services will be hit as a result of her cuts, and why are 12,000 officers going?

Theresa May: Chief constables up and down the country are giving a commitment to maintaining the quality of their front-line services. The chief constables of Gloucestershire, Kent and Thames Valley, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, are all saying that they have a commitment to ensuring front-line services.

Christopher Pincher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chief constable of Staffordshire has reorganised the back office of his operation and organised his local policing units to ensure that no front-line services are cut in Staffordshire? In fact, in Tamworth we have an extra bobby on the beat. That is no thanks to the Opposition, who are forcing us to make these cuts.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The chief constable of Staffordshire is another chief constable who is committed to protecting front-line and neighbourhood policing and ensuring that he does so in a way that makes sense and introduces greater efficiency in several areas. The problem with the position taken by the Opposition is that they do not want to see any change of any sort in policing, and yet there are chief constables out there who know that a transformation of policing is what is needed in the circumstances that we find ourselves in. In many cases, as has been evidenced by my hon. Friends, we may see an improvement in the service that is given to people.

Yvette Cooper: Then what does the right hon. Lady say to the chief constable of Lancashire, who says,
	“we cannot leave the frontline untouched and that is because of the scale of the cuts”;
	to the chief constable of South Yorkshire, who has said,
	“we will be unable to continue to provide the level of service that we do today in such areas as neighbourhood policing”;
	to the chief constable of Kent, who said that 20% is
	“a significant drawback into police numbers, both civilian staff and police numbers, and clearly there's a potential impact that crime will rise”;
	and to the chief constable of Norfolk, who says that given the scale of the cuts,
	“Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary…report confirms what we have always maintained, that…the constabulary will have to reduce its front line over the next four years”?
	Her policing Minister has said that he likes chief constables who stay quiet. Does she want to gag the chief constables of Lancashire, South Yorkshire, Kent and Norfolk, or does she think they are doing a bad job?

Theresa May: A number of those chief constables, including the chief constable of Kent, have made it absolutely clear that they are going to protect neighbourhood policing. Perhaps the right hon. Lady should reflect on the evidence given by the chief constable of Greater Manchester to the Home Affairs Committee, when he said that an artificial numbers game had been necessary under the last Labour Government, with the result that some officers were being put into back-office roles that need not be undertaken by officers.
	Crucially, all the savings that I have set out can be made while protecting the quality of front-line services. At the same time, as I have made clear in response to several interventions, we are reviewing police pay, terms and conditions to make them fair to police officers and to the taxpayer. If implemented, Tom Winsor’s proposals to reform police pay and conditions will help the service to manage its budgets, maximise officer and staff deployment to front-line roles, and enable front-line services to be maintained and improved.

Charles Walker: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa May: I am going to make a little progress.

Charles Walker: It is a microscopic intervention.

Theresa May: I will complete this point and then I might be generous to my hon. Friend.
	Winsor proposes rewarding those with specialist skills, those who work unsocial hours, and those who are on the front line. His proposals are comprehensive, wide-ranging and far-reaching. They are things that the Labour party never had the guts to do. Given that the Labour party would be cutting £7 in every £8 that we are cutting this year, the shadow Home Secretary needs to tell the House where her cuts would fall.

Charles Walker: My right hon. Friend is as wise, charming and insightful as ever. However, I think that the Winsor review is a trifle too aggressive on police terms and conditions, and I hope that she will bear those concerns in mind when independently reviewing Winsor’s recommendations.

Theresa May: There is indeed a process that is taking place in relation to the proposals of the Winsor review. The proposals are before the Police Negotiating Board at the moment, and there will be a proper process to consider its decisions. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Winsor review identified significant savings
	that could be made by changing the terms and conditions, and then proposed to plough half that sum back into improved pay and terms and conditions for the police.
	We want not only to manage the cuts that we are having to make, but to make the police service better. The Labour Government spent a lot of money on policing in the boom years, but they spent it all on making simple things very complicated. They made an industry out of performance management and league tables; created a forest of guidance, manuals and pointless paperwork; and hugely increased the number of bureaucrats, auditors and checkers. At the same time, they did nothing to increase police visibility, nothing to increase public accountability and nothing to reform and modernise the service. We are putting that right. We are slashing the bureaucracy that Labour allowed to build up.
	Earlier this month, I announced measures that would save up to 2.5 million man hours of police time each year. That is on top of the measures that we have already taken to scrap all Labour’s targets and restore discretion to the police. We have got rid of the policing pledge, the confidence target, the public service agreement targets, the key performance indicators and the local area agreements. We have replaced them with a single objective: to cut crime. I want police officers chasing criminals, not chasing targets. The Government do not put their trust in performance indicators, targets or regulations. We put our trust in the professionals and in the public.
	Let me address the third fallacy in the Opposition motion. Police and crime commissioners are not an American-style reform; they are a very British and very democratic reform. The Labour party certainly did not consider democratic accountability to be an alien concept when the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said in 2008, when he was the Minister for Policing, Crime and Security, that
	“only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical”.
	I could not agree more.

Vernon Coaker: What did we do?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman asks what the previous Government did. Well, they did nothing. They said they wanted democratic accountability and then did absolutely nothing about it. I say to him that if democracy is good enough for this House, it is good enough for police accountability.

Andrew Bridgen: My right hon. Friend might remember that the last Labour Government did have plans for policing reform. Indeed, they proposed that police forces should merge and spent some £12 million of taxpayers’ money, only ultimately to abort the plans. Does that not show scant regard for the spending of taxpayers’ money?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point about the attitude of the previous Government.
	Our reforms are based on the simple premise that the police must be accountable not to civil servants in Whitehall, but to the communities that they serve. That is exactly what directly elected police and crime commissioners will achieve. The legislation for police and crime commissioners has passed through this House and has entered Committee in the other place. We will
	seek to overturn the recent Lords amendment when the Bill returns to this House. Unlike the existing invisible and ineffective police authorities, the commissioner will be somebody people have heard of, somebody they have voted for, somebody they can hold to account, and somebody they can vote out if they do not help the police to cut crime.
	We now come to the Opposition’s fourth error. It is complete and utter nonsense to suggest there will be no checks and balances on the powers of police and crime commissioners. We have specifically legislated for strong checks and balances. A police and crime panel will scrutinise the police and crime commissioner. The panel will have several key powers, including the power of veto over the police and crime commissioner’s proposed local precept and over the candidate they propose for chief constable. The panel will also make recommendations on local police and crime plans, and will scrutinise the commissioner’s annual report. It will have the power to ask the commissioner to provide information and to sit before it to answer questions. It will also be able to call on Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for professional judgment over the police and crime commissioner’s proposed decision to dismiss a chief constable.
	We have published a draft protocol setting out the relationship between police and crime commissioners and chief constables. The protocol was agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives, the Met and the Metropolitan Police Authority. A copy has been placed in both House Libraries and copies are available on the Home Office website. The protocol makes it clear that commissioners will not manage police forces, and that they will not be permitted to interfere in the day-to-day work of police officers. The duty and responsibility of managing a police force will fall squarely on the shoulders of the chief constable, as it always has.
	We will publish a strategic policing requirement to ensure that commissioners deliver their national policing responsibilities, as well as their local responsibilities. A strengthened HMIC will monitor forces and escalate serious concerns about force performance to Ministers. Finally, the Home Secretary will retain powers to direct police and crime commissioners and chief constables to take action in extreme circumstances, if they are failing to carry out their functions.
	The Opposition are simply wrong to say that there will be no checks and balances on police and crime commissioners. There will be extensive checks and balances—the Opposition just choose to ignore them. Of course, unlike the current invisible and unaccountable police authorities, police and crime commissioners will face the strongest and most powerful check and balance there is: the ballot box. This should be a concept with which the Labour party is familiar: if they fail, they get booted out of office.
	I will turn to police powers. The police national DNA database, which was established in 1995, has clearly led to a great many criminals being convicted who otherwise would not have been caught. However, in a democracy, there must be limits to any such form of police power. Storing the DNA and fingerprints of more than a million innocent people indefinitely only undermines public trust in policing. We will take innocent people off
	the DNA database and put guilty people on. While the previous Government were busy stockpiling the DNA of the innocent, they did not bother to take the DNA of the guilty. In March, we gave the police new powers to take DNA from convicted criminals who are now in the community.
	Rather than engaging in political posturing, we are making the right reforms for the right reasons. Our proposals will ensure that there is fairness for innocent people by removing the majority of them from the database. By increasing the number of convicted individuals on the database, we will ensure that those who have broken the law can be traced if they reoffend. In all cases, the DNA profile and fingerprints of any person arrested for a recordable offence will be subjected to a speculative search against the national databases. That means that those who have committed crimes in the past and have left their DNA or fingerprints at the scene will not escape justice. The rules will give the police the tools that they need, without putting the DNA of millions of innocent people on the database.
	Like DNA, it is clear that CCTV can act as a deterrent to criminals, can help to convict the guilty, and is warmly welcomed by many communities. The Government wholeheartedly support the use of CCTV and DNA to fight crime. However, it is clearly not right that surveillance cameras are being used without proper safeguards. When or where to use CCTV are properly decisions for local areas. It is essential that such measures command public support and confidence. Our proposals for a code of practice will help to achieve just that. If the Opposition disagree, as was clear from the speech by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, perhaps they should cast their minds back to the controversy over the use of CCTV cameras in Birmingham in the last year. British policing relies on consent. If that is lost, we all suffer. Sadly, the Opposition do not seem to understand that.

Philip Davies: I hope I am right in sensing that my right hon. Friend is moving back from the left-wing, liberty agenda on DNA and CCTV. The police installed 14 cameras in what used to be a no-go area of east Leeds. Within 18 months, that led to crime falling by 48% and burglaries falling by 65%. Will she confirm that that did not restrict anybody’s freedoms, but enhanced them by allowing people to go out at night, which is a freedom that they had been deprived of for many years?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, the Government wholeheartedly support the use of CCTV and DNA in the fight against crime. We are introducing not unnecessary bureaucracy but a sensible and measured approach, which will help to ensure that CCTV is used for the purpose for which it was designed—tackling crime.

Tobias Ellwood: Will my right hon. Friend say a word or two about Criminal Records Bureau checks? We had a case in Bournemouth in which a teacher from one school was not allowed to drive a minibus for another school, to which her children went, because of CRB checks. That seems a mad situation, and I hope it can be rectified.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I will come on to vetting and barring once I have covered the issue of antisocial behaviour, because every aspect of the Opposition’s motion is wrong.

Khalid Mahmood: What effect does the right hon. Lady think her cuts will have on counter-terrorism, given that, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said, chief constables will not be able to provide 24-hour policing for such matters?

Theresa May: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have protected the counter-terrorism policing budget, because we recognised the importance of that.
	The next mistake in Labour’s motion is on antisocial behaviour. We are giving the police and local practitioners a simpler and much more effective set of tools. The current alphabet soup of powers is confusing, bureaucratic and, far too often, simply not effective. The number of antisocial behaviour orders issued has fallen by more than half, and more than half of them are now breached at least once. More than 40% are breached more than once, and in fact those that are breached are now breached an average of more than four times.
	We are introducing a smaller number of faster, more flexible and more effective tools that will allow practitioners to protect victims and communities. Far from making it harder for communities to get action on antisocial behaviour, we will introduce the community trigger, which will give communities the right to force agencies to take action to deal with persistent antisocial behaviour if they have failed to do so. The last shadow Home Secretary said:
	“I want to live in the kind of society that puts ASBOs behind us.”
	I find it rather concerning that the current shadow Home Secretary does not want to live in the same kind of society as the shadow Chancellor.
	The Opposition’s final mistake in the motion is on child protection, and it brings me to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) raised. There are no loopholes in the programme that we have proposed. If by “loopholes” the Opposition mean that our scheme will no longer require 9 million people to register and be monitored by the state, they are right. We will not put nearly one in six of the entire population on to some enormous, intrusive Government database. We will not stop famous authors from reading poetry to schoolchildren. We will provide an appropriate and proportionate scheme that will give vulnerable people and children the protection that they need, while allowing those who want to volunteer to do so without fear or suspicion. That will make children’s lives better, by encouraging, not discouraging, people to work with them. I am sure that many Members, like my hon. Friend, can give examples of people who have found the whole process difficult and, sadly, been put off volunteering.

Yvette Cooper: Will the Home Secretary respond specifically to the NSPCC’s concern? It has raised the issue of a loophole whereby someone who has been barred from working with children can apply for a voluntary or part-time supervised job with a sports organisation or school, and that organisation will not
	even be told that they have been barred. Her junior Minister confirmed in the Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee that that was the case, and children’s organisations, the Children’s Commissioner and Labour Members are deeply concerned about that loophole. Can she confirm that it does indeed exist?

Theresa May: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for mentioning the NSPCC, because it enables me to put the record right and quote its chief executive, Andrew Flanagan, who has said:
	“The Government’s amendment is absolutely right. We welcome this wholeheartedly as it will make a huge difference to the safety of young people. We look forward to working with the Government as the new scheme is implemented.”

Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Lady will know that the matter was discussed in detail in Committee, and my hon. Friends who served on the Committee were clear that that NSPCC comment referred to the changes for 16 and 17-year-olds. She rightly listened and made the changes in question. Will she also make a change in the case of someone who has been barred? It might be known that there is a problem with someone working with children, yet they will be allowed to do so again. The organisation that is supposed to be supervising them will not even be told that they have been barred from working with children. Will she look again at that matter? It is very serious.

Theresa May: The issue was discussed in Committee, and the points that were made were very clear. As she said, she is talking about a situation in which an individual will be supervised. In the past she has talked about people with part-time jobs in schools, whose activity will be regulated. The potential for barring will therefore apply. In situations in which people’s activity is supervised, information will be available from the enhanced CRB check.
	I accept that throughout, there has been a difference of opinion between Government Members and the Opposition. Labour wanted to put millions of people on to the database, which prevented people from volunteering to work with children and prevented authors from going into schools to read to children. Frankly, the scheme needed to be revised, and the Government are doing so.
	We have a clear and comprehensive plan to cut crime. We are empowering the public, cutting bureaucracy, strengthening the fight against organised crime, providing more effective and appropriate powers and getting better value for money for the taxpayer. Those are the right reforms at the right time. In contrast, the Opposition are wrong on police numbers, the HMIC report, front-line availability, police and crime commissioners, DNA, CCTV, antisocial behaviour and child protection. They are wrong on each and every point, and that is why their motion deserves to fail.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am going to lift the time limit to seven minutes, but if Members start to intervene I will have to drop it again.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for choosing this topic for today’s debate. Rather than consider national matters or the headlines, I wish to discuss what is happening to the safer neighbourhood police teams in my constituency. They were introduced on the basis that there would be a team in each ward with six officers—a sergeant, two constables and three police community support officers, known as the 1-2-3 formation. They were the best innovation in my constituency in the past 20 years. They tackle not only crime levels but the fear of crime, a focus that would otherwise be missing. The lives of people in my constituency are often blighted not by actual crime but by the fear of being a victim of crime.
	One of the fundamental points about safer neighbourhood teams is that they make people feel safer in their neighbourhood. People know their police officers and can just walk up to them. They are less alienated from the police and build up a level of trust in them, which makes them more likely to pass on information that they would not give to the anonymous police officer racing around in their Panda car. That change in policing was brought about not by the police or Whitehall mandarins, but by politicians—MPs who understood their constituents’ needs and how best to address them. Safer neighbourhood teams are not perfect, and it was necessary to look at their hours of work and shift patterns. However, they provide increased support and confidence in the communities that I represent, and yet they are under threat, and nobody but nobody is prepared to stand up and be counted on what is actually happening.
	I should therefore like the House to give me a few minutes to explain what is happening to my safer neighbourhood police teams. Fact No. 1: my local police are very clear that the current system of ward-based safer neighbourhood teams cannot continue. The Mitcham and Morden Guardian reported it thus: Merton police have
	“submitted a plan detailing three possible options…All three present a move away from the ‘one-two-three’ model used by safer neighbourhood teams in all 20 wards”.
	That is not just tinkering. The report continues:
	“Chief Inspector Lawrence said Option 2, which proposes nine SNTs, was the preferred option.”
	Indeed, every report I have seen has made it clear that Merton police want to move away from the 20 safer neighbourhood teams—one in each ward—to having just nine of the current bases. They even told me that in a face-to-face meeting.
	Fact No. 2: reducing the number of teams from 20 to nine is supported by Conservatives. For instance, Richard Tracey, our local London assembly member, is reported to have “welcomed these proposals”, and to have said that he had for years advocated adding flexibility to community policing. Moreover, David Simpson, a senior Merton councillor, is reported to be “relaxed” about the SNT shake-up. He added:
	“We’re supportive of the nine SNT bases.”
	Fact No. 3: in the meeting at which Chief Superintendent Dick Wolfenden, of Merton police, went public with plans to cut safer neighbourhood teams, he cited Government cuts, saying:
	“The future doesn’t look great. By 2014 I’ll be operating with 25 to 30 per cent less than I had eight months ago. My life, right now, is all about spinning plates and trying to keep the shop open…I’m fighting battles on all sorts of different fronts.”
	Fact No. 4: earlier this year, Merton police told the leader of Merton council that although they are officially
	“at full strength for constables and sergeants”
	they have a smaller number who are
	“currently unable to perform operational”
	duties.
	In other words, full strength does not mean having every post filled. The police also admitted to eight PCSO vacancies and a recruitment freeze. Therefore, although there is no official policy of police cuts, the reality is that we do not have the officers that we should have.
	The Met’s website states:
	“Safer Neighbourhoods teams usually consist of one sergeant, two constables and three police community support officers.”
	However, according to Merton police’s website, currently—as of today—fewer than half their safer neighbourhood teams have a full complement of officers. Therefore, the police’s claim that the 1-2-3 system is “usual” seems at least a little exaggerated.
	Officers have spoken of being moved to other teams or being given other responsibilities. Individual police officers have written e-mails about “permanent reductions” rather than vacancies “for the foreseeable future”. They have said that as far as they are concerned, each ward will have just one PC, which brings me to my next fact.
	Fact No. 5: according to the minutes of my safer neighbourhoods panels, which are produced by the police, there has already been a safer neighbourhoods “team merger” between Pollards Hill and Longthornton. They have even held joint panel meetings, and for several months, only one sergeant covered both wards, which is exactly what one would expect if we were to go from having 20 to nine teams. It is almost as if the police were trialling their new system even before they had been allowed to replace the old one.
	As a result, there has been local furore and a lot of media interest. Assistant Commissioner Ian McPherson even had to appear on BBC London’s TV news to deny everything. I wrote to him the next day to reiterate that the merger had taken place and to invite him to come to Mitcham to see for himself that residents really were telling the truth. Unfortunately, he did not reply for nearly eight weeks, and when he did he could not bring himself even to refer to the merger, let alone to deny it. It therefore must be a coincidence that the police announced earlier this month that Longthornton would have its own sergeant after all—a small victory, and perhaps one for the big society, because it shows what communities can do when they try to overturn bad decisions.
	Hon. Members might think that getting a post filled is a victory, but my next fact is even more disturbing. Fact No. 6: the police have always said that SNTs are based only in their wards, but a huge number of measures have meant that the teams have been reduced and taken away from their wards. I cannot go into those details because of time, although I would dearly love to—I will write to the Home Secretary.
	Policing is fundamental to my constituents and those of other hon. Members. We must tell the truth about what is happening to police on the ground.

David Davies: May I begin, as I often do, by declaring an interest as a special constable with the British Transport police? A few people might wonder why I do that job. When I was on the Home Affairs Committee, I justified it by saying that I have always felt deeply about policing—that is the reality. That is one of things that brought me into politics. I felt even more deeply about the matter when I became the victim of a burglary myself. I can tell the Home Secretary the effect it can have on a family, particularly when one of the partners is often away from home and young children are involved, to know that someone has been walking around their house with a knife in their hand
	In many ways, I am sorry to have to make this speech—it is not even a very well-prepared one—but I have to tell the Home Secretary that I am deeply concerned about some of the directions we are taking. I have a view that might be unfashionable, which is that burglars, rapists, murderers, people who commit acts of violence of any sort and people who sell drugs—there is a family in Monmouthshire selling ketamine to young children in school—need to be taken off the streets and sent to prison. They should not be released early from their prison sentences, and they do not deserve 50% off their sentences, which is why for the first time ever, I think, I was unable to follow the Home Secretary into the Lobby earlier tonight. I regret that very much, but, I will not be part of any Government who want to let people out of prison. I do not think the Labour party did a good job on law and order, but when I hear colleagues say that it banged up more people than we will, I start to question what I am doing here.
	Home Secretary, I will find it much easier to follow you into the Lobby tonight, because the Opposition have tabled a motion based on money, and we all know that, frankly, you are in a no-win situation. Labour Members did what they always do—they taxed and spent, they borrowed and they spent, they printed money and left us all with a £1 trillion debt.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman address the House through the Chair, rather than the Home Secretary?

David Davies: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	I was saying that I have no problem in following the Government into the Lobby on this motion, because it is about money. I understand full well that cuts have to be made, because we do not have the money and because basic economics means that we cannot live off other people’s money for ever.
	There is much we could be doing to support the police. Morale in the police is very low. We could be doing a lot about bureaucracy. That has been said for years—of course it has—but I can give specific examples. Officers spend 10 or 15 minutes filling out a stop-and-search form for each person they stop and search. They cannot stop and search the right people because code A relating to section 2 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 prevents them from searching somebody who has committed an offence that is probably non-arrestable
	when the police do not have direct evidence or anything on them at that moment. For example, at Liverpool Street station, I once stopped a beggar who had a long criminal record for carrying knives and drugs. I wanted to give him a quick frisk—not an invasive strip search, but a frisk—but I could not because although he had 20 or so convictions, I had no evidence that he had drugs on him at that particular moment. Give the police the tools to do the job, and they will do it well.
	Public order police officers have one of the hardest jobs going. One minute they are told that they should not kettle people because it is against their human rights, but the next they are told, “There’s been a riot, the Conservative party’s offices have been invaded. We want robust policing next time.” The next time there is robust policing, but then there are more complaints about it from Members on both sides of the House who have never had to stand, outnumbered 10:1, in front of a load of rioting people and had to try to work out which rioters are passing the iron bars, which are throwing them and so on. There is no way that the police can turn round and run because they are in uniform. It is a very difficult and dangerous job, and if they do not always get it right, it is not altogether surprising.
	There are things we could be doing to support the special constabulary to make much better use of it, such as employer-supported policing, which I have spoken to the Home Secretary about before. Quite frankly, however, if it comes down to money, there is a difference between me and Opposition Members. I would like more money put into the police force and the Prison Service so that we can look after our people properly. The first priority of any Government should be the defence of the realm and the rule of law. Where I differ from Opposition Members, however, is that I would say to the Home Secretary—even though it is not her decision—that I cannot understand why we are pouring into the third world money that is being spent on Mercedes Benz by dodgy dictators in Africa, while having to cut funding to the police and prison services here, resulting in our people being not as safe as they ought to be.
	Let us be honest about this. If we are going to reduce funding to the police force, there will be a cut in service. There is no point trying to pretend otherwise, no matter what reforms we make. I offer the Home Secretary a serious suggestion. I have noticed that on many occasions the police have to waste a lot of money providing translation facilities for people who claim not to speak English. I have actually arrested people who were able to tell me in perfect English that they were not responsible for whatever they were doing—usually bag thefts and such things. They have an amazing level of English, but take them back to the police station and suddenly it has all gone and a translator has to be found at £50 an hour—and no doubt the translator follows them all the way through the court process as well. On rare and happy occasions, these people actually go to prison. When that happens, though, we have to spend money housing in our prisons people who are often illegal immigrants—that involves a certain expense, although not as much as the figures often quoted suggest—and afterwards we have to spend money trying to deport them if their countries will take them.
	The Home Secretary should take some of the money that is meant for the third world in the third world, and use it on people from the third world who are over here
	breaking the law—not all of them are, of course, but some of them do.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	Yes, I appreciate that I quite often put my arguments across in a clumsy fashion—although from what I have seen, that is no barrier to high office in this place—but I have one priority in mind: the safety of our people.
	The other day I was talking to somebody who was brought up in a mining village—I can tell the Home Secretary who it was afterwards. That person was a Conservative party agent—a true working-class Conservative of the sort who put in people such as Margaret Thatcher and John Major. She was not just a member of the Conservative party, but someone who went out and campaigned, and had been an area chairman. However, she has now left the Conservative party because she feels that we have abandoned people such as her on issues such as crime and immigration. I have the utmost respect for the Home Secretary—far more, in fact, than for many other members of the Cabinet—and I will happily follow her through the Lobby this evening. However, I very much hope that working-class Tory voters—and perhaps even working-class Labour voters—will be voting Conservative at the next election, and will not feel let down and betrayed. I have canvassed many houses in my lifetime and met many people who said that they would vote Conservative. Not one of them has ever said to me, “I’m voting Conservative because I want you to let more people out of prison.” Let this not be the message from the Conservative party if we ever want to win an election again.

Debbie Abrahams: Let me start by saying how offensive I found some of the remarks that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) made. [ Interruption. ] I will leave it at that.
	Let me say how important policing, and crime reduction and prevention are in my constituency, as they are in many others, as we have heard. As we have also heard, the British crime survey showed that during Labour’s Administration, helped by record numbers of police, crime fell by 43% to a 30-year low. Violent crime fell by 42% and burglary by 59%. The risk of being a victim of crime was the lowest since 1981, when the BCS began. Under Labour, there were record numbers of police—nearly 17,000—and more than 16,000 police community support officers.
	This Government’s public spending cuts have meant that every police force in England and Wales faces a 7.5% real-terms cut this year and an 8.7% cut in 2012-13. That means that in the run-up to the Olympics, when there will be pressures on all forces, and when the Home Secretary says that there is an ongoing terror threat, forces will face a 15% cut in the next two years. By 2014, that figure will have risen to 20%. Contrary to what she said earlier about Chief Constable Fahy’s comments to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, let me point out that he said that £76.6 million would be cut in total over the next two years, and that because 86% of the budget is spent on the work force, that equates to—these are the figures that he quoted—nearly 1,400 police officers and 1,600 civilian staff posts being lost.

Claire Perry: I am enjoying the hon. Lady’s use of statistics, but I implore Members on both sides of the House—and we have a lot of intelligent people here this
	evening—to get away from this fetish about the numbers of police, and instead talk about the results. We all knew that we would have to make cuts; let us talk about where those cuts should fall and what the rights numbers are to guarantee safety.

Debbie Abrahams: I am happy to come to that, but it is important to set out the statistics that I have just given, which show that there has been a cut from a level that enabled the police force to work effectively.
	We have also heard about the recruitment freezes, and about some police forces using the legal loophole in the police pensions regulations forcibly to retire police officers with over 30 years’ experience; they are some of our most experienced officers. Another issue is the Government’s fixation with what they call front-line or visible policing. We must not forget the important role that specialist units play in domestic violence and child protection cases. They are important areas that also need to be valued.
	What most people cannot understand, however, is why, at the same time as putting communities at risk with cuts to the police force, the Government are proposing to spend more than £100 million on 42 elected police commissioners. That is the equivalent of 600 full-time posts. It just does not make sense.
	In last year’s manifesto, Labour made a commitment to maintaining the then police staffing levels, with a three-year assured programme of investment. We were going to make tough choices elsewhere, in procurement, IT and overtime.

Richard Fuller: I am terribly sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, because we are about to hear where exactly she would make cuts. We all look forward to that. She speaks assuredly about the number of police officers under the last Labour Government, but many of my constituents tell me that they never saw a police officer on their streets during that time. How many more police officers would she offer, in order to give assurance to my constituents?

Debbie Abrahams: I am talking about the situation that we have now, with the hon. Gentleman’s Government in power. I had thousands of petitions presented to me during the by-election specifically on the subject of cuts in police numbers. I must also remind him that the Deputy Prime Minister promised to increase police numbers.
	The effects of the cuts have already been noted by the Conservative chair of the Association of Police Authorities, who said that they would ultimately put at risk progress in reducing crime. In my constituency, the Oldham division of the Greater Manchester police has expressed concern not only about the direct effects of the cuts on police spending but about the cuts to the local authority budget and the abolition of area-based grants, all of which will have significant effects. The partnership working between the police, the local authority and the voluntary sector has had immense benefits for crime prevention and community safety—for example, in target-hardening measures such as alley-gating. There is strong evidence that such measures have a significant benefit for vulnerable properties. Other measures that have brought benefits include youth programmes and offender management.
	I have been contacted by nearly 50 local police officers living in my constituency. Not only are they fearful for their jobs but the recent Winsor review and Hutton report will have significant implications for their terms and conditions and for their pensions. Sergeant David Donlan asked me:
	“How many people have to go to work in body armour, routinely putting their lives at risk to protect our communities, and yet have imposed on them where they can live, who they can associate with or even marry? We can’t join a union, let alone strike.”
	I am committed to working closely with the police on reform, but I think that the Government have mishandled this review process and treated police officers poorly. The Home Secretary pre-empted the final report and has attempted to paint the police as inefficient and not interested in reform. I urge her to reconsider the question of the royal commission. The discussions that I have had with local police officers make it clear that they want to see modernisation, but it must be fair. I know that we will be debating pensions soon, but the point for this debate is that, in addition to major changes in terms and conditions and cuts to the work force, the changes to their pensions are yet another hit for the police.
	My final point concerns the long-term consequences of the Government’s cuts. In addition to the short and medium-term impacts on crime, I am worried about the long-term effects that these ideologically driven cuts will have on the social fabric of our society. Last week, we heard how pay disparities between the UK’s highest and lowest paid workers were taking us back to Victorian times. There is strong evidence that the increase in socio-economic inequalities will not only result in widening differences in life expectancy between the rich and poor but be associated with higher levels of crime and disaffection. The trust that underpins community cohesion and positive relationships in a multicultural society is once again being eroded by a Tory Government who are determined to drive their disastrous cuts through.

Tom Brake: I have been a Member of the House since 1997, and I still naively expect this Chamber to be a place of rational debate. However, there has certainly been no evidence of that from the Labour Front-Bench contributions today, either during the previous debate on sentencing or during this one on policing. There is no recognition of their share of the responsibility for the significant cuts that the coalition is having to make. They are tougher than we had expected because the finances we inherited were deteriorating faster and the international climate was tougher for countries that were not tackling their deficits.
	There is no willingness from Labour to demonstrate how the £7 of savings it was going to make, as opposed to the £8 that the coalition is having to make, would safeguard police numbers. Indeed, Labour Members are not even listening to their own party leader, who said in his speech to the Progress conference on 21 May:
	“There will be those who say it is enough for Labour to hunker down… I hear it quite a lot: let’s be a louder… Opposition”,
	but he then went on to say:
	“But to think that it is enough is to fail to understand the depth of the loss of trust in us and the scale of change required to win it back. We must recognise where we didn’t get things right”.
	Their leader is asking Labour Members to adopt a more honest and considered approach, but they do not listen to their leader, as we found out during the AV campaign when he said, “I’m right behind it” and half of them walked off in the opposite direction.
	It was the Opposition’s choice not to have a debate about what is achievable from an efficiency savings point of view and what is achievable in police numbers. We heard in an intervention that police numbers in Staffordshire had been maintained.

Julian Huppert: I met the chief constable of Cambridgeshire constabulary this morning and he told me that the budget can be managed so that there will be no reduction in police constables at all, and perhaps even a small increase. It is being done by greater efficiency and by greater collaboration with other forces. Will my hon. Friend suggest that other police authorities follow that excellent lead?

Tom Brake: Indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Clearly, a number of forces around the country are adopting approaches or policies to ensure that police numbers are maintained. Another good example is Cleveland, where by working with Steria the force has been successful in achieving savings of £50 million over a 10-year period; it has been able to achieve 20% reductions in the areas on which they are working by focusing on cutting bureaucracy, increasing mobile access to make the police more effective when they are out in the field, and improving case file preparation, which no doubt leads to more successful prosecutions. When the will is there, much is achievable in making greater efficiency savings and focusing on police numbers. The Government are right to tackle the issue of police terms and conditions. It has been on the agenda for many years, but has never been tackled. It was time for the Government to grasp that particular nettle and progress is now being made.
	It was also the Opposition’s choice not to debate one of the most effective ways of tackling crime, which is by cutting reoffending. Community sentences were mentioned in the earlier debate. With community sentences, 51% of people reoffend as opposed to the 59% who reoffend after being given a prison sentence. These are comparable groups of offenders: in one case, with a community sentence properly enforced, there is only a 51% reoffending rate; when a similar group of prisoners are sent to prison for one year or less, 59% reoffend.

David Davies: Is the hon. Member aware that that report also showed that anyone sentenced to more than 12 months in prison had the lowest reoffending rate of all? Is not the lesson we should draw that long prison sentences are more effective than anything else?

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am drawing on one part of the report; he is drawing on another. It is very clear that community sentences, for people who would otherwise have been given a short prison sentence, actually reduce reoffending. That means fewer victims. Surely, if we are having a rational debate, that must be a matter of interest to all Members.
	For community sentences to be effective, I underline the importance, as stressed to me by User Voice, of ensuring that rehabilitation is retained within the community
	sentence scheme. In its view, those sentences are more effective than prison sentences because the rehabilitation component is there. I hope that that will remain part of the community sentences that are going to be issued.
	Work in prison is also important. It is effective in tackling reoffending because it gives prisoners skills that they can use, as well as providing—according to the Howard League, which published a report today—something like £17 million that can go into the victims fund. I am sure that everyone would welcome that as well.
	Volunteering in prison is potentially just as effective in reducing reoffending as work in prison. Last week the Prison Reform Trust launched a very successful scheme at High Down prison drawing on the skills of listeners, and I am certain that the reoffending rate among former prisoners who have participated in it will be less than that among those who have not.
	The Opposition did not, of course, choose to call a debate about the most cost-effective ways of solving crimes. Today I was fortunate enough to visit Crimestoppers, which happens to be based in my constituency. What it is achieving at a cost of £4.5 million has been valued at £120 million. Last year it helped to solve 50 murders. It favours payment by results, because it believes that it has a very successful model. By using the public as a resource, it is able to bring cases to court much more quickly than it could have done had it followed the normal court and police processes.
	The Government have set out in a concrete and substantive way what we believe will be effective in tackling crime and what we believe is necessary to deal with inefficiencies in, for example, the back office. I feel that it was incumbent on the Labour Members who tabled a debate on this subject to set out what their alternative would have been, but I am afraid that that has been totally lacking this evening.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. If I am to be able to call all the Members who wish to speak, I shall have to reduce the speaking times to seven minutes.

Alun Michael: Let me begin by declaring, as I do at meetings of the Home Affairs Committee, that my son is the chief executive of North Wales police authority.
	The debate raises some really big issues: how we can make policing effective, how we can increase professionalism, and how we can tackle new challenges such as internet-related crime, which continues to grow.

Tobias Ellwood: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the clock could be adjusted.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The debate is now under way again.

Alun Michael: Further issues arise from cuts that are too deep and too sudden, and, in the case of the police, made even more painful by being front-ended. We also face an upheaval as the Government press on with their plan to establish police and crime commissioners for each force in England and Wales—apart from that in London, which strikes me as an odd omission.
	If the Government are truly confident that theirs is the right approach, they would have been well advised to pilot the idea, because the devil will be in the detail of relationships. The wholesale implementation of the Government’s proposals in 41 forces at a time of massive cuts, wholesale retirements and the serious demoralisation that arises from pension changes can only be described as truly courageous.
	I do not want to become bogged down in numbers, but newer Government Members may be unaware of the disastrous record of the last Conservative Government and the way in which the ground was recovered during the subsequent years of Labour administration. It is vital that the Government and the commissioners—if the other place allows their introduction—fully understand the importance of a partnership approach to cutting crime. When Robert Peel set up the first police force, he stated clearly that cutting crime and preventing offending was the key role of the police. I am pleased to acknowledge that both the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice and the Home Secretary underlined those words when they appeared before the Home Affairs Committee. That belief, however, needs to be supported in practice and in substance, through partnerships linked to a clear and objective analysis of why, when and where crime happens.
	I am also pleased that the crime reduction partnerships which I introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are to continue, with some new titles and rebranding. That is fine: refreshing the model is an entirely appropriate move by Ministers in a new Government. However, this Government need to make sure that they build on the cuts in crime achieved under the last Labour Government and squeeze out the further gains in crime reduction that are there to be made. That requires a clinical approach and an engineering approach to crime. My favourite example in that regard is the violence reduction strategy in Cardiff, led, as it happens, by a medic—Professor Jonathan Shepherd—which has resulted in a cut of now well over 40% in the number of victims, as measured not by arrests or reports to the police but by the reduction in the number of people needing treatment at an accident and emergency unit following a violent incident. Such results do not happen by accident. Intelligent analysis, partnership and ambition are what drove that improvement, and we need that approach everywhere. The result is savings to courts, to prisons and to the NHS. There are therefore benefits for all those who are part of a partnership approach.
	My second example relates to youth crime. The numbers in residential detention have come down as the youth offending teams have focused on the challenge of cutting youth crime. Police are involved in what is an inter-agency approach. Again, I have no objection to that approach being renewed and refreshed, but I urge Ministers not to abandon a strategy that is working. We need police engagement in the work of reducing youth crime, rather than having them always chasing after the offenders.
	My third example is about police community support officers. I commend the Welsh Assembly Government who have just come to office for putting in place additional PCSOs to support the work of the police in Wales. That is essential for truly effective policing because we must connect with local communities if we are to be successful.
	My final example is to do with internet-related crime. This is a growth area, but the police will never have the resources to keep on chasing around the whole of the internet. The work of the Internet Watch Foundation and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre show what can be done. They have succeeded in tackling child abuse over the last few years. It is important that business too is linked in and works in partnership on internet-related crime. I commend to Ministers the example of e-Crime Wales, driven by a partnership between the Welsh Assembly Government and the police in Wales.
	We need the police to do all the heavy lifting of detective work, making arrests, being visible, engaging the public and policing our town and city centres. The Minister is well aware of the challenges that our success in building up Cardiff as a real capital has presented to the police in policing successive activities, but as the Justice Committee report on justice reinvestment showed, most of the services and resources that make a difference in cutting crime, and therefore in protecting victims, are outside the criminal justice system. Partnership is therefore not just an extra; it is not an option that can be dropped if time is short and the pressure is on. It is crucial and central to enabling the police to be successful in their work, and I hope Ministers will encourage the continuation and growth of partnership working.

Philip Davies: I want to talk predominantly about closed circuit television and DNA, because I still feel that, despite the Home Secretary’s best efforts, the Government are going in the wrong direction on these issues. I want to make it clear that I am not talking about what I believe to be the misuse of CCTV, such as for local authorities to snoop on what people put in their bins; I am talking about the use of CCTV for the detection of crime.
	A Scotland Yard study of the effectiveness of surveillance cameras revealed that almost every Scotland Yard murder inquiry uses their footage as evidence. In 90 murder cases over a one-year period, CCTV was used in 86 investigations. Officers said it helped to solve 65 cases by capturing the murder itself on film, or tracking the movements of the suspects before or after an attack. The recent case in my constituency of the “crossbow cannibal”, who was convicted of murdering three prostitutes and dumping their bodies in the river, provides a good example, as he was caught only because there was CCTV in the block of flats where he was committing his crimes.
	CCTV evidence is not only a valuable tool for the police. It is invaluable in courts on two levels: to convict the perpetrators of crimes, and to acquit those who have not committed a crime. CCTV footage provides conclusive and unbiased evidence, devoid of anyone’s spin or recollection bias, which not only saves courts’ time and money, but prevents witnesses from having to go through the often stressful and unpleasant ordeal of giving evidence in court. Equally, CCTV can prove that someone is being wrongly accused of committing a crime, as was the case with Edmond Taylor. His conviction for dangerous driving was quashed on appeal when CCTV footage showed that a white man had actually committed the offence—Mr Taylor is black.
	Another useful tool that we should be promoting is automatic number plate recognition. It was through the use of ANPR, and that alone, that PC Sharon Beshenivsky’s killers were caught. On 18 November 2005, Sharon Beshenivsky was shot and killed during a robbery in Bradford. The CCTV network was linked into an ANPR system and was able to identify the getaway car and track its movements, leading to the arrest of six suspects. The chief superintendant of West Yorkshire police called the ANPR system a
	“revolutionary tool in detecting crime.”
	When a 2005 Home Office report on public attitudes towards CCTV asked what people thought of the statement “Overall the advantages of CCTV outweigh the disadvantages”, 82% of those surveyed either agreed or strongly agreed.
	People use “civil liberties” as an argument to support the case for reducing such technology. What I fail to understand is how footage of someone taken by CCTV cameras on a public street in the public domain invades their privacy or civil liberties. If someone has chosen to walk down the street, people can see them doing it whether they are recording it on a phone, observing what they are doing or watching it through a CCTV camera. Those actions are clearly not private.
	These civil liberties arguments seem to be used against the DNA database too. I believe in real freedoms, and the fact that someone’s DNA is on a database does not prevent that person from going about their daily lawful business and it does not impinge on their freedoms in any way whatsoever. During the application for judicial review of the retention of DNA in the divisional court, the now Lord Justice Leveson stated that
	“the material stored says nothing about the physical makeup, characteristics or life of the person to whom they belong.”
	These civil liberties arguments about DNA and CCTV are bogus.
	As a result of the Government’s proposals, murderers such as Ronald Castree would be free to roam the streets and potentially kill again. Castree stabbed 11-year-old Lesley Molseed in 1975 when she was on the way to the shop to buy bread for her mother. Stefan Kiszko was wrongly convicted and was jailed for 16 years for the murder until 2005 when Castree’s DNA was taken after he was arrested but not charged over another sexual attack.
	It is a fact that many violent criminals have been jailed only because their DNA was taken when they committed a minor offence. These criminals include Dennis Fitzgerald, who was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for the rape of a woman in November 1987, and Nasser Mohammed who was jailed in 2008 for raping a woman in 2002 after his DNA was taken when he was picked up for a minor offence. Often, a DNA match is the only thing that finally brings people to justice.
	Figures from the National Policing Improvement Agency state that in 2008-09, 32,209 crimes were detected in which a DNA match was available or played a part, and the latest annual report on the national DNA database concluded that six in 10 crime scene profiles loaded up to the database were matched to a subject profile. In addition, 147,852 crime scene sample profiles could be solved if we had a national DNA database—these are instances where a sample has been taken at the crime scene but there is, as yet, no match.
	The DNA database can also be used to acquit the innocent. The very first murder conviction using DNA evidence, in 1988, proved the innocence of a suspect. Richard Buckland was suspected of separately assaulting and murdering two schoolgirls in 1983 and 1986, but when his DNA sample was compared with DNA found on the bodies of the two victims it proved that he was not the killer. Colin Pitchfork was later arrested, having been one of the villagers who had their DNA taken and a match was found.
	Unless the Government change their stance on DNA and CCTV, they will be doing a huge disservice to people in this country. Their approach will lead to more unnecessary victims of crime and will further tarnish our reputation in the field of law and order.

Yasmin Qureshi: The debate is on policing, but I shall touch on the economics of the situation, which are raised so often by Government Members. The Opposition are not in denial about the deficit, but we do not accept that we caused it—[ Interruption. ] Members on the Government Benches can snigger and laugh, but they could say that we caused the deficit only if no other country with a similar economy had had the same problems. All those countries had the same problem with their economic and banking systems because of the recklessness of the bankers, the sub-prime mortgages and the fact that some banks had balances that were bigger than the GDPs of many countries. They were reckless. We saved our system and as a result we managed to save half a million people becoming unemployed.

Tom Brake: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Yasmin Qureshi: I will give away on another point, not on this one.
	We recognise that there are financial difficulties, but we must ask what we will achieve when we save money. We must ask whether if we save £10 in one area, we will end up paying £20. That will happen with the police cuts and the changes to the police more than with the changes to any other service. Staff numbers might be cut in the Department for Work and Pensions without repercussions elsewhere, but when front-line police officer numbers are cut that is a false economy.
	There has been discussion in the House about imprisonment and long-term sentences and, in some cases, long sentences deter people from committing offences. What really stops people committing offences, however, is the fear of being caught, being prosecuted, being convicted, going to prison and having their liberties taken away. When somebody sees a police officer on the street, they will not commit a crime. When they know that there are a number of police officers in a particular area, they will not commit a crime. We will save the money that is spent when someone is arrested on prosecuting them, on lawyers’ fees, on our prison services, on prison officers, on probation officers and on all the different agencies that work in the criminal justice system. Of course, let us not forget the poor victim who suffers as a result of the criminal offence. If we put together the cost of all that, we must ask whether it is worth making that £10 saving when we will end up spending £30 to deal with the problem that the saving causes.
	I urge the Government seriously to consider how cuts should be made in a Department such as the Home Office, given that we will have more problems in the long term. I know that the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said that we must not blind the House with statistics, but everybody always bandies statistics about and it is right to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said about the fact that crime, including violent crime and crimes against properties, fell considerably during the 13 years of Labour government. That did not happen miraculously—the Labour Government invested in the police, spent money on community support officers and gave more money for fingerprint analysis, DNA evidence and technical support. The combination of those things caused the crime rate to fall. Government Members can tell us not to quote statistics, but that is the truth: crime fell under Labour and it fell for the reasons I have given.
	It is not just me who says that crime will rise. The chief constables of South Yorkshire and Lancashire have said that that will happen if the numbers of front-line police officers are cut. It is inevitable—it is common sense—that more crimes will occur if police numbers are cut, so I urge the Government to reconsider this false economic measure.

Paul Maynard: One of my regular Sunday penances, more fool me, is to read The Observer. I do that neither for the quality of its journalism nor for the need to read Will Hutton’s economic “wisdom”, but because I am keen to get my head around what the Opposition are thinking so that I can better understand why they say the crazy things they say. This weekend’s editionwas particularly interesting: it printed a column in which it bemoaned the death of political discourse because of the quality of the Opposition’s response to what happened last week over the Justice Secretary’s comments. Nothing that I have heard today in the two debates I have sat through has given me any cause to decide that the quality of political discourse in the Chamber is improving. With a few honourable exceptions on both sides of the House it has been profoundly dispiriting.
	Far more spiriting was my experience of attending the civic Sunday service yesterday in Poulton-le-Fylde for the new mayor of Wyre. Next to me on the pew sat the divisional commander of the northern section of Lancashire constabulary, whom I see occasionally at the odd event and who has also been a senior policeman in the adjacent Blackpool area. We had a fascinating discussion about some of the policing challenges he faces such as the role of domestic violence, with some 36% of violent crime within the northern division occurring within a family dwelling. We had a good-natured debate about the need for, or his arguments in favour of, minimum pricing for alcohol. Our discussion brought home to me a point that the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) was trying to make earlier—that partnership working is a good thing. We have very senior policemen who have a very good understanding of the social problems in the communities they seek to serve.
	I have had another spiriting encounter recently—at one of my street surgeries on the day before that service. As I stood on the street corner under my Conservative umbrella in the pouring rain on the Fylde coast, a local resident and I discussed long-term antisocial behaviour. I tried to persuade that house owner, who was an elderly gentleman, that it was worth reporting a crime to the police, that he should not just assume that he would be ignored and that he needed to have a bit more confidence in the police. That encounter brought home to me once again the fact that there is a fundamental disconnect. We can have as many PACT—police and community together—meetings as we like, but they do not achieve much if they are not attended. We can have as many well-paid members of police authorities as we like—promoting themselves all of a sudden to make sure they have a future—but if people do not know who they are and do not see the role they play, as people have not recently, then they are not the ones to reconnect with ordinary people. That is why I strongly support the decision to introduce police commissioners.
	I speak as a Member of Parliament who is fortunate, as I mentioned to the shadow Home Secretary earlier. I know that the chief constable of Lancashire has an awful lot to say for himself but he has some excellent divisional commanders who have been working on trying to accommodate the budgetary changes in Lancashire. In Blackpool, the police have been able to increase the number of neighbourhood policemen on the beat or, to use that wonderful phrase that the Opposition love so much, on the front line. My constituents will benefit from that and I welcome it. More importantly, I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s pledge, if I heard her correctly, to maintain police numbers as they are. I am so grateful to her for writing all of my election leaflets between now and the general election. When I get my Hansard tomorrow I will be able to say quite confidently that Labour would cut policing in Blackpool because they would take it back to where it was before we had the improvements in neighbourhood policing.
	My main concern, which I would like to raise in the final minute, is that last year Lancashire police’s total external income was £310 million, less than for 2010-11, but still £2 million more than for 2009-10. However, more than 30% of the increase in the police authority’s council tax precept has gone not on front-line policing, but rather on plugging the growing gap in police pensions. I know that there is much concern in all parts of the House about changes to police terms and conditions, but it is important to look at the matter, as the Home Secretary has said, from the point of view of fairness to taxpayers as well.
	By 2011 the subsidy from the taxpayer to plug the gap in Lancashire police authority’s pension scheme had risen to £23 million, up from £13 million just three years ago. I firmly believe that the police should get a fair pension and a fair deal, but taxpayers also deserve a degree of fairness. The systemic underperformance of police pension funds must be resolved because the burden falls, in the end, on all of us.

Jack Dromey: The Home Secretary was good enough to meet six police officers from the west midlands—six outstanding officers whom I know well. They included Tim Kennedy, described
	by one of his colleagues as one of the most brilliant forensic detectives anywhere in Britain, with an outstanding track record of detection; Sergeant Dave Hewitt, an outstanding community police sergeant, with a team of police officers with a first-class track record of keeping their community safe; and Detective Constable Tony Fisher, a man who specialises in the detection of serious crime, ranging from detecting the individual who was robbing pensioners at knifepoint at cash points and putting him away for 13 years, to the action that he took to track down somebody who was responsible for leading a gang carrying out robberies with a machete, putting him away for 17 years.
	There was also Martin Heard, a police constable and an outstanding community police officer in Wolverhampton. As his community said on ITV only last week, “He was always there for us when we needed him. Now there’s no one there in his place.” He was forced out as one of the A19 officers. To add insult to injury, he then received a letter asking, “Do you want to come back as an unpaid special constable?”
	Even in some of the most sensitive areas of policing, we are seeing cuts. In the west midlands 16 counter-terrorism officers are being forced out under regulation A19—nine constables, three sergeants, two inspectors and a superintendent. This is madness. It is the abrogation by Government of their first duty, which is to ensure the safety and security of our communities, and it is utterly indefensible, yet the Government seek to mount two defences.
	The first defence is the “Not me, guv” defence that blames the police. The Home Secretary cuts the police, then blames the police for the cuts, in circumstances where, by the scale and speed of the cuts that she has offered up to the Chancellor, she leaves chief constables in an impossible position. The second defence is the assertion that there are only 11% of police on the front line at any one time. That simplistic nonsense fails to understand the nature of modern policing.
	Inspector Mark Stokes, one of the police officers whom the Home Secretary met, is an expert in designing out crime. At the 4 Towers estate, crime fell by 98% as a consequence of his work on the front line, but also in the middle office. Typically, the great bulk of the work to detect individuals guilty of domestic violence is done by way of a multi-agency approach, the multi-agency risk assessment conference, not on the front line, and it is devastatingly effective in protecting women against assault.
	Offender managers work through the multi-agency public protection arrangements, managing offenders on the basis of risk—sex offenders, for example, such as the case in the west midlands of an individual who had served 28 months in prison because he had assaulted young children. He came out, applied to become a referee, became a referee, and was detected as a consequence not of detailed work on the front line, but of intelligence work that discovered what was happening, moved against him and raised the matter with the Football Association, leading to a sex offender order and that individual no longer having any access to young children. I could go on. So much of the work of intelligence and surveillance officers, for example, is not done on the front line, but it is absolutely key to successful policing.
	What we are seeing is a devastating reversal of the progress made over the past 13 years. What we saw over those years was on the one hand our police learning the
	painful lessons from the mistakes of history, and on the other hand massive investment by a Labour Government, leading to 17,000 more police officers, 16,000 police community support officers, a 43% fall in crime and a model of community policing that is held in high regard worldwide and valued by our communities. Now in the west midlands we are seeing crime rising: 2,200 more vehicle crimes, 2,500 more burglaries and robbery up by 25%.
	In conclusion, the Home Secretary spoke earlier about policing by consent, and I agree with her, but there is no consent in my constituency for what she is doing. There is dismay because no politician now on the Government Benches went to the people last May and said, “Vote for me and I will cut the police.” There is dismay because 2,400 will go from the West Midlands police service, and because those brave men and women with 30 years’ service, some of them 48 or 49 years old, are being forced out just when the community needs them most. The Home Secretary must realise that the Government have got it wrong and that they have to think again.

Tobias Ellwood: This has been an illuminating and important debate for understanding the policy differences between the coalition Government and the Labour party. I would like to make a few observations, but first I will do as other Members have done and pay tribute to the work of the police, both nationally and in my constituency. They serve our communities well and occasionally put themselves in harm’s way, and we must never forget the demanding environment in which they work. That said, reform is long overdue.
	I am pleased that the coalition Government are finally grasping the nettle and looking at restructuring, saving police officers’ time, simplifying how crime is recorded and freeing officers to focus on cutting crime. That is in contrast to Labour’s approach, which can be summarised as shifting power away from communities and back to Whitehall, introducing too many target-based systems and taking officers away from the front line. I listened carefully to the speech made by the shadow Home Secretary, for whom I have a lot of respect, and read the speech she gave to the Police Federation, but I still see no evidence—perhaps it is too early at this time—of any concrete ideas for reform.
	On the subject of the Police Federation, I would like to digress briefly and mention the reception given to the Home Secretary last week, which I thought—I choose my words carefully—was unedifying, unfortunate and unnecessary. We are in difficult times and whichever party was in power it would have to make some tough decisions. Communication is very important, and we must respect the appointment. There are consequences of showing disrespect when a Secretary of State speaks to a federation, whether it relates to education, health or the police. It is important that that relationship is kept strong and that we do not get to the situation, as we see with the Health Secretary, where they decide no longer to speak to the full federation, but to smaller groups instead. I just want to put those points on the record.
	I have a couple of observations to make on the Home Secretary’s speech itself. I have made the point about Criminal Records Bureau checks. I am fortunate to
	come from a family that is full of teachers, who feed me information about their problems and frustrations when trying to organise school events, take trips and provide the children with a bit of exposure beyond the school itself. Their frustration is the result of the red tape that they have to go through and the amount of paperwork required when organising those trips. I gave the example of one teacher in one school requiring a separate set of checks simply because her child went to another school where she wanted to drive a minibus. I am glad to hear that the coalition Government are going to address that issue.
	Another aspect is antisocial behaviour, and I intervened on that point, but the Opposition did not make it clear whether they will move away from ASBOs or are still proud of what is considered a badge of honour. It is clear that among certain age groups three quarters of ASBOs are broken. They are breached, they do not work and we need a different form of reform which looks into the deep-rooted reasons why such ASBOs are broken.
	There is also the aspect of late-night drinking. It is fair to say that Bournemouth has a vibrant nightlife, as do most towns nowadays, but one issue that the Home Secretary raised was the importance of the visibility of policing. The visibility of policing in Bournemouth has been tested, because of late-night drinking—the 24-hour drinking culture that the previous Government introduced. It has placed huge pressure on the police. They are no longer overstretched from 10 o’clock at night until 1 or 2 in the morning; they have to go until 3, 4, 5 o’clock in the morning in order to police the streets, because that is when the antisocial behaviour really kicks in.
	Then, there is the amount of red tape affecting our police officers. In 2009-10, more than 52 guidance documents came from the Home Office, each one averaging 100 pages—far too much interference from Whitehall. That needs to change. That is why only 15% of any police officer’s time seems to be spent on the front line. Instead, they are pulled away to do the paperwork that the previous Government promised to tackle.
	This has been a helpful debate. I am pleased to see that after 13 years we are starting to tackle some of the difficult decisions that face our police forces and our country. We need to reform the police, to reduce the red tape that exists among our forces and finally to grasp the difficult nettle of pay and conditions. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on taking on those issues—issues that were sadly ducked during 13 years of Labour.

Geraint Davies: The thin blue line on the Government Benches is pretty thin for fairly obvious reasons: they do not have a decent alibi for making these savage and unnecessary cuts. The alibi that the Home Secretary feebly provides is that it is all the deficit and all Labour’s fault, but we all know that at least two thirds of that deficit was created by the bankers.
	The British taxpayer has been robbed by the bankers, and in reality the deficit was the price paid to avoid a depression. If the Labour party and my right hon.
	Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) had not intervened, we would have been on our knees, and that investment in the banks will be paid back many times over, because the share prices will go up. Admittedly, one third of the deficit was excess investment over income to grow our economy, but there are no apologies for that.
	Given that there is a deficit that the international financial community created, what should be done about it? Should we go down the Home Secretary’s path and clear the deficit in just four years, or whether we should halve it in four years? The other question is, whether we should get rid of the deficit in four years just through cuts to public services and benefits, or use three mechanisms: first, economic growth, such as notably the Germans and the Americans are using; secondly, make the bankers pay their fair share; and thirdly, yes, make manageable savings over time.
	In the case under discussion, that would mean 12% cuts instead of 20%, the difference between front-line cuts and no front-line cuts. As I said in an intervention, the Government’s policy is a false economy, because the extra 8 percentage points, which will go purely on man and womanpower, will increase crime and the public will bear the cost in property or in damage to people. There is a clear choice, and the Government’s policy is the wrong choice.
	We have seen it all before. Under the Tories last time, crime doubled; under Labour, crime went down 40%. Not only are we seeing the means of tackling crime reduced by cuts in police, DNA services, CCTV and ASBOs, by making sentences easier and by giving the wrong signals to rapists; we are increasing demand by cutting education, cutting jobs and increasing drug-taking essentially—[ Interruption. ] The Home Secretary seems bemused, but in reality if there is less education and fewer police, more children will go on to take drugs. That is certainly the testimony that I have heard from the police. The basic economics of the situation are completely absurd.
	On top of that, we have this structural change costing £200 million—the introduction of elected commissioners, whose incentive will be to go for votes in middle-class, low-crime, high-voting areas. They will go along and say, “Yes, we’ll have some more community policing down here in this middle-class area”, but they will not do that where there are no votes and higher crime. There will therefore be a direct contradiction between the motivation of the elected commissioner and the operational chief constable who is supposed to be independent. The whole thing is absolutely farcical. What we need, clearly, is a pause. We have seen a number of pauses from this Government, including on the NHS and the woodland fiasco, and it is time to push the pause button again and do a complete reversal. In a nutshell, these changes are unnecessary, unfair and counter-productive.
	Finally, I want to put in a good word for the Swansea police, particularly Chief Superintendent Mark Mathias. They are doing an absolutely fantastic job. For example, they are meeting up with retail traders to talk about the relationship between antisocial behaviour and economic growth and linking up with communities. However, they are not helped by the fact that one hand is being tied behind their backs and they are not given the support that they require.
	The view of the police, which is reflected among the public, was shown by the complete silence that met the Home Secretary when she spoke to them. If she does not have the confidence of the police, how can she hope to succeed? These polices do not make sense economically, socially or in terms of crime, and I urge her to think again.

Vernon Coaker: This has been an interesting debate with many contributions. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friends, to a man and woman, have put forward the message that what we are seeing is very damaging to each and every one of our communities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) pointed to the real damage that the budget cuts are doing to policing in their areas, highlighting the impact of the fight against crime on other important community services.
	Interestingly, the unity among Labour Members was not matched by Government Members, many of whose interventions and speeches pointed to the fact that the Government are in some difficulty on this whole agenda. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), who also spoke about himself, eloquently explained at some length the damage being done to the Government’s law and order credentials on sentencing and issues relating to policing. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who is not in his place, asked his own Home Secretary to look at the disproportionate impact of the cuts on policing. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) pointed to the potential harm done by the bureaucracy surrounding CCTV, ANPR and DNA. However much the Home Secretary tries to pretend that all is well and everything is going just swimmingly, it is clear that there are tensions and problems.
	With regard to all this, it sometimes seems to me that I live in a parallel universe. I am struck by what the Home Secretary said at the Police Federation conference and by what she has said to the House. There was not a sliver of doubt in what she said—not one jot or iota of movement to suggest that maybe, just maybe, there might be other people who have a point, or that if she is not totally wrong, perhaps she needs to trim a little bit. Everybody who has opposed the Home Secretary, and indeed the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, is regarded as wrong, and their views are rejected. The view from Government Front Benchers is this: “We will plough on. It doesn’t matter what anybody else says—we are going to carry on.”
	I say to the Home Secretary that the Government are out of touch on crime. They are taking big risks with the cuts to police numbers. The Prime Minister, who prides himself on being in touch, has not made one major crime speech since becoming Prime Minister. There is no cross-Government strategy to cut crime. Crime went up under the Tories before. If the Home Secretary, the Policing Minister and other Ministers carry on like this, they are at risk of that happening again, and it is communities across the country that will pay the price.
	The Home Secretary tells the House that there is no choice but to slash the budget by 20% and to lose 12,000 police officers and 16,000 staff. I say to her that that is a choice the Government have made. There is an alternative, but the Government do not want to pursue it. I will not use the example of aid that was given by the hon. Member for Monmouth, because we support that money. The Government have protected certain budgets. The schools budget is protected. The health budget is quite rightly protected. The Defence Secretary fought for the defence budget and secured changes to it. Where was the Home Secretary when it came to the police budget? Where was she when she should have gone to the Prime Minister and demanded that he give the police the budget they deserve? She was nowhere. Why was that not a priority? The police suffered a disproportionate cut to their budget, which is forcing chief constables up and down the country to make cuts.
	I do not blame the chief constables, as the Home Secretary has done, for cutting police numbers. The blame for that lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of this Government, who have made the decisions about the budgets. It is not the chief constables who should be blamed, but the Home Secretary and her Ministers.
	As well as police numbers being cut—some of the most experienced officers have already gone—the front line will be affected. I guarantee to all Government Members that if they speak to police officers in their constituencies, they will say that it is impossible for what is happening in their area not to impact on the front line. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) says that she does not think that that is right. I tell her to put that on her website. I will check it in the next couple of days to see whether it is on there.

Julian Huppert: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Vernon Coaker: I will give way in a moment, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put out a press release on what he says. It will come out how the loss of officers and staff in Cambridgeshire is impacting on the front line there. I was in Cambridgeshire yesterday, and I spoke to front-line officers who told me that that was the case.

Julian Huppert: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is a shame he did not have the courtesy to say that he was visiting Cambridgeshire. I spoke to the chief constable this morning—the hon. Gentleman would know this if he had been here earlier—and there will be no loss of police constables in Cambridgeshire. The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.

Vernon Coaker: Before the hon. Gentleman gets on his high horse, I should say that I have not heard of the new rule that one has to let an MP know every time one visits friends. I went to see friends of mine in Cambridgeshire who happen to be police officers, and they told me what the impact on front-line officers will be. If I had to choose between the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and front-line police officers in Cambridgeshire to tell me about the impact on the front line, I know who I would trust.
	The hon. Member for Shipley spoke about the impact of DNA and CCTV. People and communities up and down this country are not saying to me as shadow
	Policing Minister, to my hon. Friends or to Government Members, “We’ve got far too many CCTV cameras in our area.” I do not have people queuing up in my constituency to tell me that. They are not saying, “Actually, our civil liberties are being undermined tremendously”. They say that they want more CCTV, because they understand that it supports the police and helps them fight crime. It reassures people and enables crime to be tackled effectively.

Tom Brake: rose —

Vernon Coaker: I will not give way, because I have only a couple of minutes. I normally would, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
	A point that has not yet hit home is that supported housing, domestic and sexual violence services and youth services—the community services that people depend upon—are all being cut. When specialist housing support, sexual violence officers and the specialist domestic violence services provided by local authorities or voluntary organisations are no longer in place, people will instead dial 999 and ask for a police officer, who by their nature will try to attend. That will be a real problem for the police, because demands on them will go up as there is contraction in other services.
	The Home Secretary spoke in absolute terms about what police and crime commissioners would do, but said not a word about the defeat in the House of Lords. She spoke as though the vote there had never taken place. There was no reference to it at all, no slight heed paid to the fact that the Government’s plans might need to change.

Theresa May: May I suggest that in future the hon. Gentleman listens to my speeches? I made specific reference to the defeat in the House of Lords and what would happen in the House of Commons.

Vernon Coaker: I will have a look at what the Home Secretary said, but I think all of us know that she is just going to plough on regardless of what the House of Lords has done.
	We have a Government who are playing fast and loose on crime, and who say that they know best but are out of touch on law and order. It is about time that they got a grip and made the right choices for the country, the police and communities. If they can U-turn on forests and the NHS, we need a U-turn on the police. It will be interesting to see whether the Home Secretary and the Government do that.

Nick Herbert: We have had a typical debate on policing this evening, in which Government Members have spoken with knowledge about policing in their local areas and offered constructive suggestions on how policing could be improved and, as usual, Labour Members have simply sought to play politics, as they have in every debate that they have called.
	I begin by mentioning what I believe all of us should agree about—the value of the police in our country, the contribution that they make and the need for us to support them. I note in particular the tribute that my
	hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) paid to PC Nigel Albuery, who was stabbed on duty last week serving the Metropolitan police. His service, and what he went through, reminds us of the importance of the job that the police do, which we must recognise is frequently difficult and dangerous. Police officers, of course, cannot strike. It is therefore important—I say this in response to hon. Members on both sides of the House—that we treat police officers properly and value their service. However, none of that means that the Government do not have to take the difficult decisions that it is necessary to confront at the moment.
	I agreed strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) on criticism of the police, which was levelled, for instance, in relation to the disorder in London in past weeks. He made the point that the police are so often damned if they do and damned if they do not. This Government have sought not to join in with that criticism; instead, we have offered support for both the leadership of the police and the officers who did their job on the ground in difficult and trying circumstances. Many of those officers were injured, and we believe that criticism should be levelled at, and reserved for, the people who perpetrated that violence. It is simply wrong-headed to criticise the police for the action that they took.
	I am afraid that Opposition Members continue not to accept the fact that we must deal with the deficit, which means that we must take tough decisions. It is quite clear that Opposition would be simply unwilling to take those decisions—meaning decisions on the public sector. Do the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Policing and Criminal Justice Minister really think that it helps to criticise chief constables as they seek to take the inevitable and difficult decisions to protect front-line services and restructure their forces? That does not help those chief constables at all.
	The Opposition pretend, both to the police and to the public, that their policy would be completely different from ours, but as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out, their policy is to cut, this year, £7 of every £8 that we would cut. As the shadow Home Secretary has been forced to admit, the Opposition would cut £1 billion a year from police budgets. She must be the only person in this country who thinks it possible to cut £1 billion from police budgets without any reduction in the work force. How on earth does she think such savings can be realised?
	Of course, there will be savings from reducing the work force. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary was quite clear that cuts would be made across legal and investigation services, and in estates, criminal justice, custody, training, intelligence, business support and community policing. That is where HMIC said savings must be realised. Why do the Opposition believe it possible to reduce spending on the police by £1 billion a year—their policy—and yet pretend to police officers and staff that not a single job would be lost? Frankly, in taking that position, they are not being straight with police officers and their staff about what would happen.
	That is very different to the position taken by the former shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). When he was Home Secretary, he at least had the honesty to admit that Labour could not maintain numbers. He admitted that, but the current shadow Home Secretary
	will not admit it. The truth is that she has absolutely no idea how that £1 billion of savings would be achieved. Let me give her an example from the HMIC report. The inspector talks about the importance of making savings from collaboration. He says:
	“Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire forces anticipate savings of”
	£1.5 million
	“from joint work on scientific support, major crime, firearms, a single dog unit and a single professional standards department.”

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Nick Herbert: I am not going to give way. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] No. I gave way to the right hon. Lady last time, and she abused that privilege. I am not going to give way to her again. How does the right hon. Lady think that Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire could make these savings other than by reducing the number of people?

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Nick Herbert: Those forces talk about a single dog unit. Does the right hon. Lady think they are just cutting the number—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members must not try to drown out the Minister of State. He must be heard. If he wants to give way, he will, but if not, he must continue.

Nick Herbert: With only a few minutes to go, I will not give way.
	The Labour party does not wish to admit to police officers and the public that it, too, would be cutting budgets, staff and police pay. In her speech, the right hon. Lady criticised a police force that was having to cut its overtime bill. What does she think a cut in overtime is if not a cut in police pay? Frankly, the Opposition’s position is one of nothing more than shameless opportunism. Government Members know exactly what we have to do.
	Incredibly, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), the right hon. Lady said, “We have had this debate before”. Yes we have, and she has called it before, and several times she has come to the Dispatch Box and repeated her constant claim about police cuts, but in all her speeches what has she actually said about policing policy? What has she said on any of these issues?

Yvette Cooper: rose —

Nick Herbert: The right hon. Lady has had her opportunity already because she has called three debates, but what has she said about policing policy? She has said nothing about serious organised crime. She has said nothing about procurement and IT, on which we argue that savings can be found. We say that nearly £400 million of savings can be made through better procurement and IT. What is the Opposition’s policy on that? They are silent. They have nothing to say on that.

Yvette Cooper: rose —

Nick Herbert: The right hon. Lady has never mentioned it in her speeches. She opposes the two-year pay freeze that we are asking the whole public sector to apply, and which will save a considerable sum in policing. Why is
	she opposing the two-year pay freeze and then arguing that we have not identified how to make the savings? Of course we have.

Yvette Cooper: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your experience, is it parliamentary procedure and parliamentary protocol for a Member to make so many comments about the shadow Home Secretary and not allow them to intervene to respond?

Mr Speaker: It is the responsibility of the Member on his or her feet to decide whether, and if so when, to allow an intervention.

Nick Herbert: That time-wasting intervention has just shown exactly why it is not necessary or proper to give way to the right hon. Lady.
	The Labour party, and particularly the shadow Home Secretary, have absolutely no credibility on policing policy, because they have nothing to say about it. What is her position on the Winsor reform proposal that police officers should be paid more for working antisocial hours? Is she in favour of or against that? She will not say. What is her policy on the Winsor proposal that police officers should be rewarded for the skills they show? She does not know, she has not said, and she will not say, because the Opposition have no credible policy on policing issues. What has she said about bureaucracy? Absolutely nothing at all. We know that Labour created it, and we are determined to sweep it away.
	The Government are determined to fight crime, and we are determined to support the police. We are determined to give the police and others new powers to fight antisocial behaviour. We will create a new national crime agency to strengthen the fight against serious crime. We will cut targets and trust professionals by giving them the freedom to do their job. We will sweep away the bureaucracy that Labour imposed.

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No.  36 ).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed  to .
	Main Question accordingly put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 206, Noes 304.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Electronic Communications

That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Monetary Penalty Notices and Consents for Interception) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 4 April, be approved.—(Mr Goodwill.)
	Question agreed to.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Ordered ,
	That Mike Freer be discharged from the Communities and Local Government Committee and Heather Wheeler be added to the Committee.—(Mr Clifton-Brown , on behalf of the Committee of Selection .)

HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
	That Dr Julian Huppert be discharged from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Mike Crockart be added to the Committee.—(Mr Clifton-Brown , on behalf of the Committee of Selection .)

FTSE 100 COMPANIES (GOVERNANCE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Goodwill.)

Eric Joyce: I want to speak about corporate governance in the City of London’s largest companies, the FTSE 100 companies. We all have an interest in them, because all our pensions are invested in them. In particular, I want to speak about what I consider to be a serious failure of corporate governance on the part of one company and the non-executive directors who sit on its board. When preparing my speech, I spoke to a number of FTSE 100 executives and non-executives who were both professional and frank, except those at the single entity which I fear may be the bad apple that infects the rest of the barrel.
	The City of London is a world leader. Billions of pounds pass through it every week and every month. An average of 600,000 transactions a day have taken place over the last five days, with a turnover ranging from £4.5 billion to £7.4 billion. The United Kingdom Exchequer derives an enormous revenue from the City. It is a huge source of employment and prestige for the UK, and it affects all our constituents in the most profound ways.
	The City of London is successful because it attracts many of the world’s best at all levels, be they traders, managers or back-room staff. I think it best, on the whole, to let the wheels of commerce turn and, as a nation, to extract the benefits through corporate taxation, wherever it is levelled and whatever the levy. However, as we have seen recently with the banking crisis, things can go awry. For that reason, the system requires integrity so that people can trust it. Of course no system is perfect and flaws will always exist, but most agree that that essential integrity is best assured by, on one hand, regulatory bodies alongside the professional bodies that regulate the various professions involved in the City, and on the other hand the governance and structures of the individual companies themselves.
	My aim this evening is not to raise the technicalities and structures of City regulation, but to ask the Minister more broadly whether he is concerned about the governance oversight of firms that are controlled by specific individuals from abroad and have no operations in the UK. I do not suggest that it is impossible for such companies to operate with complete dignity, and many do, but I do suggest that when there is good cause to suspect that the standards of governance of a listed company are below those that the public have a right to expect, that should become a matter of deep public concern which should be reflected in the Government’s stance on such failure.
	I have a bad apple in mind. At the core of my concern—because it illustrates perfectly the case that I am making—is the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation. I have raised the subject of the company and what I consider to be its ill-advised dealings in the House before, but things have moved on and I think that it is worth raising it again. The commercial entity that is now the ENRC arose from the denationalisation of a Kazakhstan Government asset, or series of assets. It is now dominated by three Kazakhstani billionaires. The Kazakhstan Government retain a substantial share, as does Kazakhmys, another Kazak mining company which is also a member of the FTSE 100.
	The ENRC was listed in London in 2007 and, given the importance of the mining sector in terms of general values on the exchange, it is a key member of the FTSE 100. It has extensive operations in Kazakhstan, of course, and its regional neighbours Russia and China. Significantly, it has now extended its operations into Brazil, Mali and, last year, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Before the ENRC’s entry into the DRC, the company had been the subject of as much speculation as any other FTSE 100 company—many companies are the subject of speculation, which is up to them and their public affairs people to deal with, and most of them do that perfectly professionally. The ENRC had not generated much general public interest, but that changed when it procured a number of assets in the DRC which had been expropriated by the Government from what I think the markets agree is a perfectly reputable company.
	That company operated in the DRC and was the largest taxpayer in that country. It had invested about £700 million in a couple of mines, but one in particular. I have mentioned this topic before in this place, so I do not need to keep repeating the details. What assets it invested in is well known. It invested £700 million and employed many thousands of people, and it was a huge taxpayer in the DRC, but, for no good reason, the DRC expropriated its assets. A close friend of the President of the DRC bought the assets at a knock-down price—about $20 million, which is a bit of a joke. The markets were very sceptical about the legitimacy of bidding for them. The key assets were the licences to operate a couple of mines, but one in particular at a place called Kolwezi. The only company that was really interested in procuring that was the ENRC, and that was its entrée into the DRC.
	Many people had concerns, but not, it seems, the executives at the ENRC. I do not think that it is necessarily for the executives to answer every question that people and politicians might have, but I do think that non-executive directors should have sensible oversight and give people confidence that the operations of their company are legitimate. Many questions were raised about where an overnight profit of £160 million went. There were patterns; other deals had been operated in the same way by the same guy, Dan Gertler. He is an Israeli, and apparently a legitimate business man, who flies across to the Congo to do his business. Many people asked where that £160 million of profit on that one deal had gone. We can be as transparent as we want in respect of international aid, but our Government give £140 million or £150 million to the Congo in a single deal, and that can be wiped out—it can go anywhere, and we simply do not know. That does rather throw into question the effectiveness of development aid, and scepticism has recently been expressed in certain quarters about such money simply being displaced by “dodgy deals” so it does not go where it is intended to go. There are certainly concerns about this particular deal; I and many others who are interested in the region—and in the City—were deeply concerned.
	It is a testament to the integrity of the governance of other FTSE 100 companies that many showed deep concern. Several withdrew their investments, and several reputable investment funds took out their money. One major merchant bank made a public statement that it was very concerned and reluctant to deal with this FTSE 100 company again. The non-executive directors, who I would have expected to be keen to make sure
	everything was entirely legitimate, were completely unconcerned. Their public statements were completely blasé; they had no concerns whatever. That was remarkable because most people who knew about the market, the company and the deal were very concerned about the circumstances, which was why they had not touched the asset and the ENRC got it at a knock-down price.
	I am reluctant to bang on about personalities, and I am especially cautious about that given what is happening in other current news stories. However, I shall mention one person who is publicly known to be the senior independent non-executive director of the ENRC: Sir Richard Sykes. I will mention a couple of technicalities about the purpose of governors and non-executive directors in a few moments, but I think it is pertinent to mention him now because he is a good example of a very successful chief executive officer.
	Sir Richard Sykes was CEO of GlaxoSmithKline for many years, and he was enormously successful and highly regarded. Subsequently he had a bit of a hiccup as principal of Imperial college, London, concerning what some considered to be a slightly ropey back-door deal to try to acquire the land of Wye agricultural college in Kent, which eventually fell through. That may have tainted him a little and perhaps that is why he has taken up this particular non-executive position. It was widely reported in the financial press that he was being paid about three times the normal rate—about £250,000—to be a non-executive director at the ENRC. He expressed little concern, as he thought that the deal was entirely legitimate. Indeed, he thought that if the case went to international arbitration and some fault was found, the Government of the DRC would have to pay the money. The case is in international arbitration; the company that previously owned the asset that I am referring to as Kolwezi has taken the case up. To that degree, it is difficult for us to comment on what might happen in future, but what is clear is that the senior independent non-executive director of the ENRC thinks it is perfectly legitimate and fair that the DRC, which is one of the poorest countries in the world, should pick up a bill of £700 million, £800 million or perhaps more—the case is being spoken about in terms of billions. This seems to be something of a failure of corporate governance.
	That made me reflect on the purpose of corporate governance. I am not an expert in this area—many hon. Members have much more expertise on what the defined legal roles of directors, executive directors and non-executive directors are—but I have done a little reading and I thought that I would just reflect on what corporate governance is supposed to achieve. It is commonly defined—this is a little dry, but it is perfectly right to mention it—as the system by which companies are directed and controlled. The board of directors is entrusted with that function, and each member is appointed to uphold all appropriate governance standards.
	The role of non-executive directors—this is my primary concern—within a company’s governance structure is less clearly defined and, apparently, varies among companies. Non-executive directors are often seen as the guardians of the corporate good and act as buffers between the executive director and the company’s outside shareholders. They act as chairman, monitoring executive actions and questioning executive decisions. It seems to me that they have a dual role. They clearly have a primary responsibility to the shareholder, but more
	broadly they have a responsibility to the broad City of London and the whole corporate governance structures of the UK to ensure that people are confident that if our pensions are being invested in FTSE 100 companies, as they are, the non-executives are doing the job that they are supposed to be doing. That job is to have in mind not only the profitability of the company, but the reputation of the company and the brand, and to keep a good eye on what hard-pressed executives are doing to maximise their profits. Those guys are being pushed very hard and are being handsomely rewarded but if, from time to time, someone chooses to cut a corner, it is the job of the corporate governance of the non-executive directors to pick it up.
	As far as I can see, we trust non-executive directors to a large degree, despite the fact that many people fire lots of, perhaps unfair, criticism at them, saying that they are placemen and so on. Broadly speaking, there is a quite a lot of confidence in corporate governance, as is seen in the case of Glencore, which had an initial public offer—partial flotation—last week. There has been enormous discussion about the make-up of its board, and whether or not the board can do its job properly because many of the non-execs are so powerful and wealthy. That is for time to tell, as was said in an excellent column by Miss Sunderland in the Daily Mail a few weeks ago. I have no great concerns about any other immediate companies at the moment, because I do not really know enough about them, but I do know enough about the ENRC to see that non-executive directors do not appear to have done their job. Other significant figures in the City of London have been very clear and open about that.
	It is also worth mentioning that when politicians approach these companies, whether or not they like it—they are pretty neutral—they usually have a pretty professional operation. I found the ENRC to be completely invisible and unapproachable. It has one public relations guy and a spaniel sitting in an office somewhere in London. Its ownership is abroad, as are its operations. As I say, it is owned by people who are largely unaccountable. That is not to say that there has to be wide public ownership of a company for the board to have accountability from the chief executive officers, because there are many cases where families control public companies but the governance is still fine.
	In this case, it looks as though there is about to be a fight between the Kazakhstani Government and a few billionaires who were beneficiaries when the Kazakhstani Government largely privatised the company, or took it out of nationalisation, who want to take control. The non-executive directors, who I believe have been completely ineffectual, have found lately that their reputation has been badly affected, so they are now trying to argue that there should be greater corporate oversight at the ENRC. The response from the billionaires who sit behind the ENRC has been to try to get enough shares to take overall control, to sack all the non-exec directors in about two weeks’ time at the annual general meeting and effectively to leave the company without any meaningful corporate governance. The company has also been unable to recruit a new CEO after the former CEO left at very short notice a couple of months ago in opaque circumstances.
	In conclusion, do the Government have a plan for what happens when a corporate entity, which affects everyone’s pensions, is sitting in the City of London,
	potentially infecting the barrel? I am not saying all the other companies are naive fools, but we have a corporate entity in London that has foreign ownership, no effective meaningful shareholder control, operations that are entirely abroad and billionaires who are bragging about how they will take over the company and sack all the non-execs. How will the Government ensure some degree of confidence in the markets that a company like the ENRC will not do the same thing it did with Kolwezi and damage the good reputation of the City of London?

David Willetts: I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) on securing this debate. The title on the Order Paper is “Standards of governance amongst FTSE 100 companies”, which is a very important subject, and it is clear from his remarks that he has a particular company and set of circumstances in mind. It will be hard for me to comment on that, but I realise that he is using the case to make some wider points about the City of London. He also rightly referred to the role of professional bodies before turning to the specific case of the ENRC.
	The coalition Government believe that the UK’s corporate governance framework plays an important role in enabling investors to hold the boards of companies to account for their performance, facilitating efficient allocation of resources in the economy and creating the accountability and transparency that encourage responsible business behaviour in line with internationally agreed standards. As such, it is vital to achieving our goal of sustainable economic growth.
	There are various ways in which we deliver the strong corporate governance framework we have in the UK. One is our listing rules, which might help the hon. Gentleman and me to confront the question he asked towards the end of his speech. The listing rules that must be fulfilled before a company can be quoted on the London stock exchange are a matter for the Financial Services Authority as the UK listing authority. The UK regime is one of the strongest in the world and UK listed companies are expected to comply with high standards of corporate governance through compliance with the Financial Reporting Council’s corporate governance code. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that the listing rules are crucial.
	We are not complacent. We recognise that we need to ensure that our overall corporate governance regime is fit for the future and we need to make sure that the governance of our top companies continues to improve. The governance landscape is constantly changing, both domestically and internationally. We need to adapt to that to stay in line with our competitors and we are trying to do that with corporate governance reform, the stewardship code, narrative reporting and guidance on directors’ remuneration and bankers’ pay. That is all part of the Government’s commitment to a wider corporate social responsibility agenda, encouraging businesses to minimise the negative social and environmental impact of their activity and maximise the positive impact they can make while benefiting commercially in the process.
	Our action to support and encourage responsible business focuses on helping businesses to understand how they can deliver on corporate social responsibility, including by facilitating the exchange of good practice and supporting a range of international frameworks such as the OECD guidelines for multinationals and the UN global compact, which might be relevant to the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The Government are pressing for the EU to adopt rules providing for greater transparency in the information provided by multinational companies in extractive industries about, for example, their tax payments in host countries, based on the United States’ Dodd-Frank principles. This will allow citizens to have the information to hold their Governments to account for the revenues they receive from resource wealth, including some of the tax payments the hon. Gentleman mentioned. However, I am not able to make any comment on or judgment about that specific account.
	The US Dodd-Frank Act also requires companies reporting to the Securities and Exchange Commission to report their use of conflict minerals originating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or neighbouring countries. We are interested to see how the US Government will implement their new legislation and we will closely monitor its implementation. In the meantime, we have been supporting the work of the OECD and the UN group of experts to develop due-diligence guidelines for the minerals supply chain in eastern DRC and to encourage adherence by companies looking to trade in cassiterite, wolframite, coltan and gold originating from the DRC. We are strong supporters, including financially through PROMINES, of DRC efforts fully to implement the extractive industry transparency initiative.
	As we are talking about that country and businesses located in it, let me touch briefly on the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but I hope he will understand that it is very difficult for me to comment on an individual case and that it would not be right for me to do so from the Dispatch Box. He asked about non-executive directors: let me make it clear that under UK law all directors need to comply with the same general duties, including the duty to promote the success of the company both in the long term and the short term and the duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.
	I did not know that the hon. Gentleman had intended to refer to the company he mentioned or to Sir Richard Sykes, and I am not able to comment on those specific points. What I can say is that I have had dealings with Sir Richard Sykes over the years in relation to his position with the NHS and Imperial college, and we all know his record as the chief executive at GlaxoSmithKline. He is a well-respected business man who has also made a considerable contribution to the NHS and our higher education system. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the seriousness of some of the things he said about the company. I am not able to comment on that case but I think we should all, on both sides of the House, recognise the significant contribution that Sir Richard Sykes has made to the commercial life of our country and to public service, in which I am sure he has always behaved with great integrity.
	Outside the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has raised, there are wider issues. We have launched a new agenda called “Every Business Commits”, in partnership with business in the community, to help all UK businesses
	understand how they can act responsibly. It gives them clear examples of how they can make a difference in priority areas such as supporting communities, improving quality of life, improving skills and creating jobs, protecting the environment and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. “Every Business Commits” aims to shape business’s contribution to the Government’s broader agenda to empower communities and encourage social action. We believe it will provide the platform for business to play an important role alongside Government in helping to resolve some of society’s most important challenges.
	So my response to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government believe that the UK already has a robust corporate governance framework. We are not complacent and recognise that it always needs to be reviewed and updated, and we realise that there will always be individual cases that test those guidelines and that framework. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is hard for me to go further into the specific case that he raised. Nevertheless, our principles on which we will approach this and all cases are clear—that it is in the long-term interests of British companies to support the work we are doing to bolster corporate governance, and we encourage every company to meet the standards of the best.
	We have specific powers, including the powers relating to the listing rules, which are for the Financial Services Authority. As we work through the issues of the correct
	structure of corporate governance in the UK, our conclusions will be based on the principles that motivate our desire to have a world-class corporate governance framework. However, we are not in the business of weighing companies and investors down with more regulation and higher costs. We believe in improving accountability and transparency. Those are important principles which we expect all companies, large or small, multinational or solely domestic, to live up to. We believe that following those principles is essential for securing long-term, sustainable economic growth for Britain.
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising these important issues. Although it is not possible for me to comment in any detail on the specific case, I hope he will accept that the coalition Government take very seriously indeed the overall framework of corporate governance, the powers that Governments and other regulatory bodies have, and our commitment specifically to tackling the problems with regard to the DRC and making sure that we have the highest standards of compliance when it comes to some of the extractive industries there.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.